I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Has it come to that or actually always been like that but black victims are now believed thanks to mobile video footage?
Some of the latter.
Part of the problem is also the absurd Force Protection mantra - the police are taught that every single traffic stop *might* be the Grubber brothers and all their NPCs hidden in the boot of the car driven by one middle aged guy... And that zillions of cops are murders by the Grubber brothers and friends every day....
When you add this to a toxic concept of Dominating The Situation - aka being the biggest asshole possible - what could go wrong?
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Has it come to that or actually always been like that but black victims are now believed thanks to mobile video footage?
I am sure there are elements going on: more video evidence, #metoo (i.e. others are speaking up, so I shall too), and greater media reporting of cases because it is now a national thing.
Whatever the case, there is clearly widespread poor decision-making in police forces across the nation, with lack of practice of de-escalation (or indeed letting people stopped run to catch them later without shooting at them). And with the wider reporting of it, relations between impacted communities and the police will only get worse unless something fundamental changes.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
Boris knows that
Which is silly because there's a possible eventually that Scotland eventually becomes independent and the history books may write that Brexit was a leading cause, led by Boris Johnson.
So he could become the "21st century Lord North" in any case.
P.S. nobody normal knows who "Lord North" is.
Any PM who lost Scotland on their watch would be remembered in history mainly for that.
It is Chamberlain who is remembered as the man who was the architect of the failed appeasement process, not Baldwin although Baldwin arguably did much of the work of appeasement beforehand.
Boris knows if he lost Scotland he would be humiliated and forced to resign as PM immediately, hence he will not allow any legal or recognised indyref2 under any circumstances and with a Tory majority of 80 he has the power to do so
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
The UK government line is clear, the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote
No its not. The UK government line is clear, vote Tory to stop the SNP holding a referendum. 🙄
If 2014 was once in a generation, then why vote SCon now?
Yes, a Unionist majority and SCon gains from the SNP in May stops even Sturgeon trying for an indyref2.
However the UK government has made clear it will refuse to allow or recognise the result of an indyref2 even if there is a Nationalist majority in May at Holyrood and Sturgeon then holds a referendum
Westminster can stop a referendum under the standard legal process; unionists in Gretna and points north can boycott an unofficial referendum.
The trouble comes when the number of votes in that unofficial poll is so huge as to be impossible to ignore. I'm not sure when that line is crossed; is at 50 % of the electorate (not the turnout, the electorate)? 60 %? At some point, the smell of keeping a nation trapped against it's will becomes too strong for even Boris to shrug off.
And sure- we will all survive, albeit in a smaller less interesting version of what we were. But a Unionist Prime Minister presiding over the breakup of the Union? Not survivable for that Prime Minister, even if they are pretty shameless. And the tricky call to make is whether adamantine refusal to allow an official referendum makes an impossible-to-ignore landslide in an unofficial vote more likely.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
Yes, the smart thing is not so much that our cops are not armed, per @Philip_Thompson , but that we are not so every dispute takes place on a completely different level.
The pertinent stats that were dug out when George Floyd was unlike the false BLM narrative it is quite rare for unarmed people to be killed by the US police, and even among those it is often they were shot because they were trying to grab a gun or were using a vehicle as a weapon to try and run over an officer....BUT there is a massive number (over 1000 a year from memory) armed individuals killed.
That is what the police are up against, when the public have easy access to weapons, the criminals have easy access to weapons and thus the police are much more likely to use their's as the reaction will be (rightly or wrongly) that they will be facing an armed individual.
Amazing! Freedom at last. After all this waiting, the months of anticipation, the longing, I've just been to the zoo.
Did you say to the animals, "Now I know how you feel"?
I never really understand people talking to animals. Dog owners in particular.
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
You tried to teach him that? To accomplish wok?
No, we used it as an alternative so we could debate who was taking the mutt out without him racing around the kitchen with his lead in his mouth.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that. But ‘who’s taking the dog for a Chinese cooking implement?’ sounds like something that would happen in Wuhan’s wet market.
I was going to suggest more Korean but I wouldn't want to be responsible for Son lying pole axed on the floor for several minutes again. He's an exceptionally delicate flower.
It is the start of the exodus of pharmaceutical and other companies from a toxic EU
Sanofi sacked Chris Viebacher as CEO when he was suspected of wanting to move the HQ to the US. It isn’t happening.
Indeed. People seem to be missing the obvious fact that building capacity in Asia is not a bad investment for a big pharma. The idea that Sanofi is about to leave its home base is pretty silly.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
No, I'm right.
People would still live on the British isles and would study for generations how a once prosperous and thriving union as the UK broke up and Boris would be remembered for all eternity as the architect of that if he allowed a legal indyref2 and lost it in history books up and down the British isles and beyond. Brexit would be a mere footnote.
Lloyd George did not give up all of Ireland, as I said he kept Northern Ireland in the UK, the equivalent would be Boris insisting on keeping the Scottish borders as part of the UK before granting Scotland independence. Lloyd George also sent in the Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the Nationalists, only after a bloody War of Independence did he even grant the Free State while still keeping Northern Ireland within the UK.
Scottish independence would weaken us all whatever Little Englanders like you might think
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
The country is split 50/50. The SNP do well in elections because the 50% Yes vote in united behind them while the No vote is divided three ways.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
I agree with all of that.
Also, if Brexit is such a compelling justification to renege on their "Once in a Generation" pledge, why did the polls move slightly towards No in the year after the EU referendum? Surely you'd have expected a significant move towards Yes if the Scots care so much about it? Leaving the EU was of course a big change in our national life, but it was a change for which almost 40% of Scots voted, and was clearly possible when the referendum was held.
It's impossible to unravel all of the individual factors driving polling. What's key is the result of the actual elections in May and (if it happens) of the referendum. If that's a No, it's almost certainly the end of the matter for a long time for the reasons I've set out.
As for "reneging on the once in a generation pledge", this overstates things rather imo. Salmond had to say that and here's why.
If he hadn't, a Yes vote would have appeared irreversible whilst a No vote would not. For a certain category of those on the fence, specifically those people emotionally quite well disposed to Sindy but risk averse and anxious about making the leap, there would have been a slight temptation to say to themselves, "Hmm, ok, so I think what I'll do is vote No this time, wait and see how it looks when we get the next chance to look at it".
This would have steered in aggregate and on the margins towards a No. So the Yes side had to nail that. They had to level the playing field, ensure that both a Yes vote and a No vote were freighted with equal portentousness.
Of course it's impossible to unravel all the factors driving polls. But for a "fundamental change in circumstances" surely you'd expect at least some kind of a shift in polling on this matter? I looked at the polls in the year before the EU referendum and No led by 3% on average. And in the year after, it led by 7%. I was very surprised by that result.
You're right that it was politically convenient for Salmond to make that pledge (saying that he "had" to overstates it). Doesn't mean the SNP shouldn't be held to it though.
"Pledge" is too strong a word. The LDs on tuition fees. No border on the Irish Sea. These were pledges.You break them at your peril - unless you're Boris Johnson where for some reason it's ok.
But, yes, it was in the mix (for reasons we agree on) and it can't be totally brushed aside. That's why a pretext/reason (delete to taste) was needed to argue for another vote so soon - and luckily for the SNP along came a slam dunk one in Brexit. In the absence of that, the SNP would not be pushing for another referendum at this time. I don't think it's really possible to argue with a straight face that this isn't a fundamental change in circumstances. It clearly is. Scotland has been dragged out of the European Union against its will. It's massive.
The point you're arguing is something different. The question of whether this momentous development will lead to the Scottish people changing their mind about independence. Which is a tricky one to assess. Because both of the following sentiments are probably not only common but can be held simultaneously in the same person.
"I can't believe the arrogance of Westminster over Brexit. If that's how it is, how it's always going to be, independence is looking pretty darn good to me."
"Oh shit, just thinking it through, this Brexit thing is gonna make it so unbelievably messy to separate. Not sure it's worth it, frankly."
Who knows how this is playing out in the round. I don't. You don't. Bet even Sturgeon doesn't.
Amazing! Freedom at last. After all this waiting, the months of anticipation, the longing, I've just been to the zoo.
Did you say to the animals, "Now I know how you feel"?
I never really understand people talking to animals. Dog owners in particular.
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
You tried to teach him that? To accomplish wok?
No, we used it as an alternative so we could debate who was taking the mutt out without him racing around the kitchen with his lead in his mouth.
It's always amusing when hapless dog walkers shriek "Stop it Rover. How many times have I told you not to do that?" as Rover is usually in flagrante delicto with a poodle and has, for the moment at least, forgotten what "stop it" means.
Amazing! Freedom at last. After all this waiting, the months of anticipation, the longing, I've just been to the zoo.
Did you say to the animals, "Now I know how you feel"?
I never really understand people talking to animals. Dog owners in particular.
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
You'd be amazed how much a clever dog appears to understand. If I see my dog hanging round by the door I can say to him "If you want to go out just ring the bell" and he'll ring the bell I have attached to the bottom of the door. Sometimes he'll even do it unprompted. He's probably only understanding "ring the bell", but he knows lots of similar phrases such as "where's the ball", "go for a walk", "dont go too far", "to the park", "time for dinner", etc. If he's not too excited, he knows his "left" from "right". And they pick up a lot from body language and tone of voice even if they're not interpreting the words directly.
My dog only understands two words. Pub? and Bed? These constitute her two favourite activities. Walk? receives a nil response.
Seeing all the people queuing up to get I to pubs today is quite reassuring. The public hasn't gone mad as the polls suggest and there will be no issue with filling out concert halls, stadiums or other large events. We don't need vaccine passports, we have enough strength of character in this country to do get on with life and enjoy it without needing to ask the state for permission.
Yes, unsurprisingly the PB New Normal Experts have come unstuck yet again.
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
I think there will be both.
A horde of people will charge to the pub today - including alot of people who didn't regularly go before.
A large group of people will wait until after 21st of June and x days after their second shot to boot.
The question is proportions. My guess is that after seriously long time of no going out, the rush will fill those pubs that are opening. It will be interesting to see how the level of business is sustained.
It is true that Lloyd George is not exactly known as the man who "lost Ireland".
If anything his letting the Irish have independence is remembered quite positively.
After four years of civil war? I think there was just a sense of gratitude that he’d got out of the violence.
Of course, the Irish then spent a considerable amount of time shooting each other, but that was no longer a British problem.
If Scotland heads down the same path...
Edit - it’s also worth remembering that the Anglo-Irish treaty, coupled to the Chanak incident, led to the Carlton Club rebellion which effectively ended Lloyd George’s career, well, at least his career in government.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
Great news for the Democrats.
PB's resident Anti Tipster has spoken.
See also:
"Virginia is in play"
"Fox was wrong to call Arizona and will have to retract it"
"Trump will win"
Your lack of beer is leading to selective memory, my dear fellow
Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina were tipped up repeatedly by many posters on here. Even Kentucky was mentioned in dispatches in the great glorious Biden landslide.
Keselyov: 'as every Nazi state, #Ukraine should be denazified. But as we know from history, denazification is not happening voluntarily. So Ukraine will be denazified by force. It will be painful. And Europe will be accomplice to this'
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Nah, I think he’s right. It’s a different world and a different example. We’re not trying to form and maintain an empire or colonies, and I think many of us will view Scotland sodding off as a relief more than anything now.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
The country is split 50/50. The SNP do well in elections because the 50% Yes vote in united behind them while the No vote is divided three ways.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
I agree with all of that.
Also, if Brexit is such a compelling justification to renege on their "Once in a Generation" pledge, why did the polls move slightly towards No in the year after the EU referendum? Surely you'd have expected a significant move towards Yes if the Scots care so much about it?
Of course there was no "once in a generation" "pledge".
In any case we'll see on the 6th May what the Scottish people really think.
I think there was an understanding about once in a generation. However I also think that Brexit changed the game, and it is not unreasonable to assert that. I agree with self determination in principle, and if enough Scots really want to be an independent nation then so be it. But its tricky to decide how many is enough. Is it a simple majority of those who vote? Or a majority of all registered voters? Do rUK have a say? Should ground rules be hammered out before the vote (such as national debt, currency etc).
Quite. There was an understanding that the UK would stay in the EU were Scotland to vote to stay in the UK.
(Whether or not leaving the EU might make Scottish independence a little more awkward as a practical proposition really isn't the point.)
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
Boris knows that
Which is silly because there's a possible eventually that Scotland eventually becomes independent and the history books may write that Brexit was a leading cause, led by Boris Johnson.
So he could become the "21st century Lord North" in any case.
P.S. nobody normal knows who "Lord North" is.
Any PM who lost Scotland on their watch would be remembered in history mainly for that.
It is Chamberlain who is remembered as the man who was the architect of the failed appeasement process, not Baldwin although Baldwin arguably did much of the work of appeasement beforehand.
Boris knows if he lost Scotland he would be humiliated and forced to resign as PM immediately, hence he will not allow any legal or recognised indyref2 under any circumstances and with a Tory majority of 80 he has the power to do so
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
The UK government line is clear, the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote
No its not. The UK government line is clear, vote Tory to stop the SNP holding a referendum. 🙄
If 2014 was once in a generation, then why vote SCon now?
Yes, a Unionist majority and SCon gains from the SNP in May stops even Sturgeon trying for an indyref2.
However the UK government has made clear it will refuse to allow or recognise the result of an indyref2 even if there is a Nationalist majority in May at Holyrood and Sturgeon then holds a referendum
Westminster can stop a referendum under the standard legal process; unionists in Gretna and points north can boycott an unofficial referendum.
The trouble comes when the number of votes in that unofficial poll is so huge as to be impossible to ignore. I'm not sure when that line is crossed; is at 50 % of the electorate (not the turnout, the electorate)? 60 %? At some point, the smell of keeping a nation trapped against it's will becomes too strong for even Boris to shrug off.
And sure- we will all survive, albeit in a smaller less interesting version of what we were. But a Unionist Prime Minister presiding over the breakup of the Union? Not survivable for that Prime Minister, even if they are pretty shameless. And the tricky call to make is whether adamantine refusal to allow an official referendum makes an impossible-to-ignore landslide in an unofficial vote more likely.
If Boris had gone to hard No Deal Brexit I think the SNP and Yes would be heading for a 60%+ landslide (given Scotland voted 62% Remain) and yes Boris may not have been able to hold back the momentum.
As it is by getting a trade deal with the EU and not completely ignoring Remainers he has ensured the SNP and Yes are only on about 50% ie Scotland remains divided and Brexit has only made a small shift from the 45% who voted Yes before Brexit in 2014 and he can ignore the Nationalists as a result
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
The government is set to a launch an independent investigation into former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the now-collapsed Greensill and the role of the scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill in government.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
There is only one way of governments being able to sit on a public and embarrassing story so as to say almost nothing and take no positions until everyone has forgotten about it and this is it. I wonder how many hundreds of times governments of every shade have been through this routine in the last 50 years? It is the world's most predictable story and they can do it in their sleep.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
To be fair @HYUFD still hasn't forgiven Atlee for "losing India".
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
But you're hopelessly biased, Ed.
I don't allow it to interfere with my betting Kinablu. I forecast a narrow Trump win for 2020, basically the same as he got in 2016 with the possibility of picking up 1-2 states. It was out but not hugely out and certainly closer than the landslide Biden win many on here (but not you) were predicting for 2020. Mike focused on Biden's approval numbers but there are huge variations in the range between pollsters and other data such as congressional voting preference is certainly not positive for the Democrats at this stage. Glad to see you took my advice a few weeks back on DeSantis though
Just joking. You invited the charge so I thought it rude not to oblige.
On DeSantis, I'm effectively long of him via laying others, but what's your view on overtly backing him for the nomination? He's trading in the 7 to 8 range atm.
Not value at this point, IMO. Too many imponderables.
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
That's insane.
The comment from a lot of US military on viewing cops attempts as semi-military stuff is "LAPRers - with real guns"
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Nah, I think he’s right. It’s a different world and a different example. We’re not trying to form and maintain an empire or colonies, and I think many of us will view Scotland sodding off as a relief more than anything now.
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
That's insane.
The comment from a lot of US military on viewing cops attempts as semi-military stuff is "LAPRers - with real guns"
Although it feels wrong to say it, maybe US Policing would be better served as part of the military rather than being "civilian" policing.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
India was a different case, it is not part of the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland and most of its population are not of British origin as was the case with the American colonies when Lord North lost the American War of Independence. Attlee was also a Labour PM, the Tories were the party of Empire, hence Churchill refused to give India independence and are the party of the Union.
The Suez canal conflict was about keeping a trade route open, Egypt had ceased being a British protectorate well before in 1922.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
Great news for the Democrats.
PB's resident Anti Tipster has spoken.
See also:
"Virginia is in play"
"Fox was wrong to call Arizona and will have to retract it"
"Trump will win"
Your lack of beer is leading to selective memory, my dear fellow
Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina were tipped up repeatedly by many posters on here. Even Kentucky was mentioned in dispatches in the great glorious Biden landslide.
Don't forget the Democrats were going to win the Alaskan and South Carolina Senate seats - another classic @Anabobazina tip
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
That's insane.
The comment from a lot of US military on viewing cops attempts as semi-military stuff is "LAPRers - with real guns"
Although it feels wrong to say it, maybe US Policing would be better served as part of the military rather than being "civilian" policing.
No doubt against the constitution.
Your suggesting er.... Reconstructing parts of the US?
Seriously, there are those that say the Posse Comitatus Act was about trying to forbid federal intervention in er... States Rights matters.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
Seeing all the people queuing up to get I to pubs today is quite reassuring. The public hasn't gone mad as the polls suggest and there will be no issue with filling out concert halls, stadiums or other large events. We don't need vaccine passports, we have enough strength of character in this country to do get on with life and enjoy it without needing to ask the state for permission.
Yes, unsurprisingly the PB New Normal Experts have come unstuck yet again.
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
I think there will be both.
A horde of people will charge to the pub today - including alot of people who didn't regularly go before.
A large group of people will wait until after 21st of June and x days after their second shot to boot.
The question is proportions. My guess is that after seriously long time of no going out, the rush will fill those pubs that are opening. It will be interesting to see how the level of business is sustained.
It is too early to say one way or the other. Footfall traffic was up 100% at midday which sounds great but not exactly breaking the records in absolute terms/
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
Great news for the Democrats.
PB's resident Anti Tipster has spoken.
See also:
"Virginia is in play"
"Fox was wrong to call Arizona and will have to retract it"
"Trump will win"
Your lack of beer is leading to selective memory, my dear fellow
Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina were tipped up repeatedly by many posters on here. Even Kentucky was mentioned in dispatches in the great glorious Biden landslide.
Don't forget the Democrats were going to win the Alaskan and South Carolina Senate seats - another classic @Anabobazina tip
A lie.
In fact, my prediction was a Trump win both in those states –– and in the election overall. It was a shit prediction, as I admitted several times on here at the time publicly.
More likely his image of self-worth is tied up with his being seen by others as 'important' - hard to feel important if you're doing nothing. Lobbying is the ultimate ego-stroker - it implies both your employer and the persons you are lobbying consider you important (and influential)
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. People (other than Samantha) gazing at him with awe and admiration. Hard to go from hero to zero.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
But you're hopelessly biased, Ed.
I don't allow it to interfere with my betting Kinablu. I forecast a narrow Trump win for 2020, basically the same as he got in 2016 with the possibility of picking up 1-2 states. It was out but not hugely out and certainly closer than the landslide Biden win many on here (but not you) were predicting for 2020. Mike focused on Biden's approval numbers but there are huge variations in the range between pollsters and other data such as congressional voting preference is certainly not positive for the Democrats at this stage. Glad to see you took my advice a few weeks back on DeSantis though
Just joking. You invited the charge so I thought it rude not to oblige.
On DeSantis, I'm effectively long of him via laying others, but what's your view on overtly backing him for the nomination? He's trading in the 7 to 8 range atm.
I did indeed and you are a good sport so I know you were jesting
It's a bit hard to tell re DeSantis as quite a few things could happen. I backed him at 12/1 but I am certainly not putting money on here. However, the Daily Wire poll I mentioned earlier (70% DeSantis / 30% Trump) was very interesting. Also being a Governor when the Republicans are out of power in Washington is a plus. I do though he is building up enough momentum and I agree with Mike that Trump won't win but will throw his weight behind DeSantis.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Nah, I think he’s right. It’s a different world and a different example. We’re not trying to form and maintain an empire or colonies, and I think many of us will view Scotland sodding off as a relief more than anything now.
Many, not all. Some of us will feel it keenly.
I get that - don’t mean to be insulting. I suppose my emotional connection has dulled because my sense is that many who voted “no” last time did so on economic rather than emotional grounds. If there isn’t an emotional bond, and a sense of a single nation, then for me the Union has already gone.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
It is the start of the exodus of pharmaceutical and other companies from a toxic EU
Sanofi sacked Chris Viebacher as CEO when he was suspected of wanting to move the HQ to the US. It isn’t happening.
Indeed. People seem to be missing the obvious fact that building capacity in Asia is not a bad investment for a big pharma. The idea that Sanofi is about to leave its home base is pretty silly.
Maybe not Sanofi, but lots of smaller pharma and biotech companies are probably weighing up their options right now. The UK and Switzerland will never have looked as inviting as they do now.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
That’s the one. It appears that the USA has a predominantly a serious *violence* problem.
It’s not surprising that police are nervous at traffic stops when this sort of thing happens.
Personally, I’d start by admitting the “war on drugs” has failed. It failed decades ago.
While we're still being bombarded with DofE triva, Philip was reportedly of the same opinion.
Given that the US a now has a massive problem with addiction to legal prescription drugs, they’re probably better off legalising the lot of them and treating it as primarily a health issue.
The savings in money, crime and lives would be many times the costs.
Seeing all the people queuing up to get I to pubs today is quite reassuring. The public hasn't gone mad as the polls suggest and there will be no issue with filling out concert halls, stadiums or other large events. We don't need vaccine passports, we have enough strength of character in this country to do get on with life and enjoy it without needing to ask the state for permission.
Yes, unsurprisingly the PB New Normal Experts have come unstuck yet again.
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
To be fair my most local pub, which is a fairly expensive countrysidey gastro type pub has deciding not to bother opening until May, much to my annoyance.
The other stabby stabby pub in the village has decided to open though.
I see that while Sinn Fein through the Deputy First Minister are perfectly comfortable keeping comments polite about the passing of Prince Philip, it is a shame that one of my favourite comedians in John Oliver, rather than simply, you know, not comment about the whole thing because why would people watching a show about US politics care, felt his audience really needed to know how much he hated the man,without even getting in to why.
I don't really get it - I feel like if someone was determined to be critical at this time, better to actually mention Philip's history of insensitive comments, or talk about how ridiculous coverage of his passing was, making actual points, not just seem to go 'For the avoidance of doubt, I am really glad this person is dead'.
I mean, that is weird, isn't it? Plenty of comic potential in pointing out ridiculousness, or that person X was not a saint, but I just don't see what the audience gets out of it without that. Like, the Thatcher celebrations were lacking in taste, but people usually at least got into why they were celebrating, for dark comedy purposes, or to make a political point.
Just seems like either you comment about it (either about how you don't care, or being critical or joining in the commiserations) or you don't, but a halfway position is odd.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
"Lost" implies possession. If that's the way tories think about Scotland then the union is already over.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
Interesting that MOTD (a football highlights programme which is on BBC) showed the Palace game and, notably, while the commentator said "and all players taking the knee", the camera was on a Palace player (Zaha) manifestly not taking the knee.
It's a shame that BLM has become embroiled in a broader political agenda as a simple act to show that footballers are against racism is no bad thing (similar to having a "Kick it Out" badge on your jersey).
Of course one of the really wonderful things about watching the footie highlights is to see how - seemingly, although damn it appears genuine - the players themselves are so colourblind.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
"Lost" implies possession. If that's the way tories think about Scotland then the union is already over.
It is part of the UK as much as England is. If the Union broke up Boris would have lost a key part of the Union on his watch
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
The Biden landslide people were psychologically closer than losers like me, Mr Ed and others who predicted a Trump win.
At least they got the identify of the winner right.
Haha, @Anabobazina "psychologically closer" on the landslide? Right...
Trump lost Arizona by c. 10K (ps which was why Fox were wrong to call it btw), Georgia by <12K and Wisconsin by c. 20K. Flip just over 20k voters over and he would have been on 269 votes and kept the Presidency
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
No one is disagreeing with that but it does give truth to the adage that such movements start off as a cause, then become a business and finally a scam
Thanks for DeSantis feedback. Confirmed my feeling about the price. Too low to back but continue not to lay. For now, I will stick to what for me is the knitting. Trump will not be running again. Of this I am close to certain.
Thanks for DeSantis feedback. Yes, confirmed my feeling about the price. Too low to back but continue not to lay. For now, I stick to what for me is the knitting. Trump will not be running again. Of this I am close to certain.
No worries @kinabalu, still a long way to go including whether other Republican hopefuls start taking potshots at DeSantis. My guess is no, at least for now.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
No one is disagreeing with that but it does give truth to the adage that such movements start off as a cause, then become a business and finally a scam
Well not really. "Black Lives Matter", the organisation, might be run by hypocrites and shysters but that doesn't change the merits of the cause: that black people shouldn't live in fear of being gunned down in the street by US cops.
This really is the stupidest idea since Gavin Williamson last spoke.
Scrapping the term "wickets" promises to completely overhaul the way in which scoring is described. It means a team could be described as having 75 runs off 32 balls for two outs instead of 75 for two wickets off 32 balls. A bowler can still be said to have taken a wicket but could be described as claiming 15 "outs" off 120 balls in the competition so far.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
No one is disagreeing with that but it does give truth to the adage that such movements start off as a cause, then become a business and finally a scam
No - all revolutionaries become the establishment.
I laughed out loud when I read Harry Hopkins reaction to Stalins arrival at conference. Hopkins, like a lot of ultra lefties in his day had nurtured the idea that Russia was the moral equal of the British empire etc.
Then Stalin rolled up with a division of NKVD, bodyguards and host of servants.
Churchill rocked up with a bodyguard, a doctor and a bloke to carry his briefcase (or something like that).
Poor Harry H - you could practically *hear* the tears....
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
The official excuse is apparently that she’s a “best-selling author”
BLM and associated ‘charities’ raised over $75m in public donations last year, just through third party websites like gofundme. Donors and journalists are starting to ask exactly where that money went...
If you're looking for it then that could certainly be read as having some passive aggressiveness to Harry:
- The mentions of "service" which has become a rather over-used word - Welcome Philip gave Kate - Philip would want them to get on with "the job". Clear that being a royal is a job with responsibilities.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
The official excuse is apparently that she’s a “best-selling author”
BLM and associated ‘charities’ raised over $75m in public donations last year, just through third party websites like gofundme. Donors and journalists are starting to ask exactly where that money went...
The phrase "the revolution will be televised" makes me wonder.....
What will the split on the overseas rights be, who gets the repeat fees?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
Which they wouldn't anyway, so it is all hypothetical unless you think the UK PM can grant an independence referendum without getting the approval of the House of Commons
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
No one is disagreeing with that but it does give truth to the adage that such movements start off as a cause, then become a business and finally a scam
"Such movements" being those on the left, one presumes.
Still, makes a change from Trumpism, which started out as a scam from day one. No messing.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
If you're looking for it then that could certainly be read as having some passive aggressiveness to Harry:
- The mentions of "service" which has become a rather over-used word - Welcome Philip gave Kate - Philip would want them to get on with "the job". Clear that being a royal is a job with responsibilities.
I'm sure Harry and Meghan will find a way to make this about them too.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority in England to get into power and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
Comments
Part of the problem is also the absurd Force Protection mantra - the police are taught that every single traffic stop *might* be the Grubber brothers and all their NPCs hidden in the boot of the car driven by one middle aged guy... And that zillions of cops are murders by the Grubber brothers and friends every day....
When you add this to a toxic concept of Dominating The Situation - aka being the biggest asshole possible - what could go wrong?
There was an amusing (or horrifying) story of an ex-special forces guy who failed his probation as a US small town cop. because he has handling stops in the way he'd done in Afghanistan. Which wasn't aggressive enough apparently.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
Whatever the case, there is clearly widespread poor decision-making in police forces across the nation, with lack of practice of de-escalation (or indeed letting people stopped run to catch them later without shooting at them). And with the wider reporting of it, relations between impacted communities and the police will only get worse unless something fundamental changes.
It’s not surprising that police are nervous at traffic stops when this sort of thing happens.
Personally, I’d start by admitting the “war on drugs” has failed. It failed decades ago.
The trouble comes when the number of votes in that unofficial poll is so huge as to be impossible to ignore. I'm not sure when that line is crossed; is at 50 % of the electorate (not the turnout, the electorate)? 60 %? At some point, the smell of keeping a nation trapped against it's will becomes too strong for even Boris to shrug off.
And sure- we will all survive, albeit in a smaller less interesting version of what we were. But a Unionist Prime Minister presiding over the breakup of the Union? Not survivable for that Prime Minister, even if they are pretty shameless. And the tricky call to make is whether adamantine refusal to allow an official referendum makes an impossible-to-ignore landslide in an unofficial vote more likely.
If anything his letting the Irish have independence is remembered quite positively.
That is what the police are up against, when the public have easy access to weapons, the criminals have easy access to weapons and thus the police are much more likely to use their's as the reaction will be (rightly or wrongly) that they will be facing an armed individual.
And if the will of the Scots is to go independent then a British PM accepting that and moving on would go down very well in history.
One who tried to suppress the Scots would go against everything Britain stands for.
People seem to be missing the obvious fact that building capacity in Asia is not a bad investment for a big pharma. The idea that Sanofi is about to leave its home base is pretty silly.
People would still live on the British isles and would study for generations how a once prosperous and thriving union as the UK broke up and Boris would be remembered for all eternity as the architect of that if he allowed a legal indyref2 and lost it in history books up and down the British isles and beyond. Brexit would be a mere footnote.
Lloyd George did not give up all of Ireland, as I said he kept Northern Ireland in the UK, the equivalent would be Boris insisting on keeping the Scottish borders as part of the UK before granting Scotland independence. Lloyd George also sent in the Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the Nationalists, only after a bloody War of Independence did he even grant the Free State while still keeping Northern Ireland within the UK.
Scottish independence would weaken us all whatever Little Englanders like you might think
But, yes, it was in the mix (for reasons we agree on) and it can't be totally brushed aside. That's why a pretext/reason (delete to taste) was needed to argue for another vote so soon - and luckily for the SNP along came a slam dunk one in Brexit. In the absence of that, the SNP would not be pushing for another referendum at this time. I don't think it's really possible to argue with a straight face that this isn't a fundamental change in circumstances. It clearly is. Scotland has been dragged out of the European Union against its will. It's massive.
The point you're arguing is something different. The question of whether this momentous development will lead to the Scottish people changing their mind about independence. Which is a tricky one to assess. Because both of the following sentiments are probably not only common but can be held simultaneously in the same person.
"I can't believe the arrogance of Westminster over Brexit. If that's how it is, how it's always going to be, independence is looking pretty darn good to me."
"Oh shit, just thinking it through, this Brexit thing is gonna make it so unbelievably messy to separate. Not sure it's worth it, frankly."
Who knows how this is playing out in the round. I don't. You don't. Bet even Sturgeon doesn't.
There's only one way to find out.
A horde of people will charge to the pub today - including alot of people who didn't regularly go before.
A large group of people will wait until after 21st of June and x days after their second shot to boot.
The question is proportions. My guess is that after seriously long time of no going out, the rush will fill those pubs that are opening. It will be interesting to see how the level of business is sustained.
Of course, the Irish then spent a considerable amount of time shooting each other, but that was no longer a British problem.
If Scotland heads down the same path...
Edit - it’s also worth remembering that the Anglo-Irish treaty, coupled to the Chanak incident, led to the Carlton Club rebellion which effectively ended Lloyd George’s career, well, at least his career in government.
Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina were tipped up repeatedly by many posters on here. Even Kentucky was mentioned in dispatches in the great glorious Biden landslide.
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1381558749475835905
Keselyov: 'as every Nazi state, #Ukraine should be denazified. But as we know from history, denazification is not happening voluntarily. So Ukraine will be denazified by force. It will be painful. And Europe will be accomplice to this'
https://twitter.com/Jay_Beecher/status/1381528870906695682
Lunch outside your pub
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
There was an understanding that the UK would stay in the EU were Scotland to vote to stay in the UK.
(Whether or not leaving the EU might make Scottish independence a little more awkward as a practical proposition really isn't the point.)
As it is by getting a trade deal with the EU and not completely ignoring Remainers he has ensured the SNP and Yes are only on about 50% ie Scotland remains divided and Brexit has only made a small shift from the 45% who voted Yes before Brexit in 2014 and he can ignore the Nationalists as a result
"Lessons must be learned..."
Too many imponderables.
In fact, much of April is looking extremely dry, especially down here. Barely a mm of rain for the foreseeable on the models.
No doubt against the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
He also kept Northern Ireland in the UK.
India was a different case, it is not part of the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland and most of its population are not of British origin as was the case with the American colonies when Lord North lost the American War of Independence. Attlee was also a Labour PM, the Tories were the party of Empire, hence Churchill refused to give India independence and are the party of the Union.
The Suez canal conflict was about keeping a trade route open, Egypt had ceased being a British protectorate well before in 1922.
Seriously, there are those that say the Posse Comitatus Act was about trying to forbid federal intervention in er... States Rights matters.
https://twitter.com/brunobrussels/status/1381525173820592130
🏴 36,599 1st doses / 160,454 2nd doses
🏴 11,145 / 21,299
🏴 15,099 / 3,022
NI 6,380 / 4,890
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1381593403025190917
🏴 36,599 1st doses / 160,454 2nd doses
🏴 11,145 / 21,299
🏴 15,099 / 3,022
NI 6,380 / 4,890
In fact, my prediction was a Trump win both in those states –– and in the election overall. It was a shit prediction, as I admitted several times on here at the time publicly.
So don't make stuff up about me.
It's a bit hard to tell re DeSantis as quite a few things could happen. I backed him at 12/1 but I am certainly not putting money on here. However, the Daily Wire poll I mentioned earlier (70% DeSantis / 30% Trump) was very interesting. Also being a Governor when the Republicans are out of power in Washington is a plus. I do though he is building up enough momentum and I agree with Mike that Trump won't win but will throw his weight behind DeSantis.
At least they got the identify of the winner right.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv
NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
https://twitter.com/IndyHawk89/status/1381249384357187585?s=20
No real April slowdown there.
The savings in money, crime and lives would be many times the costs.
It's not cricket: wickets to be renamed 'outs' for The Hundred
Exclusive: Move inspired by focus groups which suggested cricket terminology was a major barrier to getting people into grounds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/04/12/not-cricket-wickets-renamed-outs-hundred/
I don't really get it - I feel like if someone was determined to be critical at this time, better to actually mention Philip's history of insensitive comments, or talk about how ridiculous coverage of his passing was, making actual points, not just seem to go 'For the avoidance of doubt, I am really glad this person is dead'.
I mean, that is weird, isn't it? Plenty of comic potential in pointing out ridiculousness, or that person X was not a saint, but I just don't see what the audience gets out of it without that. Like, the Thatcher celebrations were lacking in taste, but people usually at least got into why they were celebrating, for dark comedy purposes, or to make a political point.
Just seems like either you comment about it (either about how you don't care, or being critical or joining in the commiserations) or you don't, but a halfway position is odd.
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a-foreigner/ <<— yes, that’s the one you think it is.
https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1381592996882309126
It's a shame that BLM has become embroiled in a broader political agenda as a simple act to show that footballers are against racism is no bad thing (similar to having a "Kick it Out" badge on your jersey).
Of course one of the really wonderful things about watching the footie highlights is to see how - seemingly, although damn it appears genuine - the players themselves are so colourblind.
I liked the Post's headline 'Black Lives Manors'
Trump lost Arizona by c. 10K (ps which was why Fox were wrong to call it btw), Georgia by <12K and Wisconsin by c. 20K. Flip just over 20k voters over and he would have been on 269 votes and kept the Presidency
Thanks for DeSantis feedback. Confirmed my feeling about the price. Too low to back but continue not to lay.
For now, I will stick to what for me is the knitting. Trump will not be running again. Of this I am close to certain.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1381596686322126848
Looking like a very low number later, even for a Monday.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/12/alligators-florida-mating-season
On a related theme
https://twitter.com/marknelsoncomic/status/1381255802791550976?s=20
I laughed out loud when I read Harry Hopkins reaction to Stalins arrival at conference. Hopkins, like a lot of ultra lefties in his day had nurtured the idea that Russia was the moral equal of the British empire etc.
Then Stalin rolled up with a division of NKVD, bodyguards and host of servants.
Churchill rocked up with a bodyguard, a doctor and a bloke to carry his briefcase (or something like that).
Poor Harry H - you could practically *hear* the tears....
BLM and associated ‘charities’ raised over $75m in public donations last year, just through third party websites like gofundme. Donors and journalists are starting to ask exactly where that money went...
- The mentions of "service" which has become a rather over-used word
- Welcome Philip gave Kate
- Philip would want them to get on with "the job". Clear that being a royal is a job with responsibilities.
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
What will the split on the overseas rights be, who gets the repeat fees?
Still, makes a change from Trumpism, which started out as a scam from day one. No messing.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1381584146728943618
You really need to accept that you got your call badly wrong. I did. Why can't you?
Your predictions again:
Virginia is in play
Fox called Arizona wrongly and will have to retract it
Nevada is looking interesting for Trump
Trump will hold Georgia
Trump will win the election
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority in England to get into power and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious