I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
I'm sure Robert Thompson and David L will arrive to say I'm making this up but in case I'm not can they explain why the UK have the second most new casesin the world behind Indonesia and 35 times the number in France?
However they and their fellow shills paint it it doesn't look good and it's no wonder they don't want the English going over at the moment
If the reopening gamble does go disastrously wrong, Sunak will hardly be in a good position to succeed, what with "Eat Out to Help the Virus Out " and "Stop Wearing a Mask as soon as it's Legally Possible" being his best known pronouncements on the subject!
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
It's absolutely tragic what's happening in SA. The country is on fire due to rioting and violence by supporters of Zuma.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
Yeah. Foreign news appears to have disappeared. Apart from the US and Israel/Palestine. Probably lack of correspondents and a pandemic. We are interested, but I suspect few others are.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
I'm sure Robert Thompson and David L will arrive to say I'm making this up but in case I'm not can they explain why the UK have the second most new cases behind Indonesia and 35 times the number in France?
However they and their fellow shills paint it it doesn't look good and it's no wonder they don't want the English going over at the moment
After 15 months, do you still not understand exponential growth?
If the reopening gamble does go disastrously wrong, Sunak will hardly be in a good position to succeed, what with "Eat Out to Help the Virus Out " and "Stop Wearing a Mask as soon as it's Legally Possible" being his best known pronouncements on the subject!
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
CNN when trump was in power, i don't think they even did US news....unless Trump tweeted about it. It was literally 24hrs Trump tweeted / said something offensive again, here are 8 talking heads to talk about just how offensive it is.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
too many journos like their trips to NY or LA or LV .
7. Even if Starmer passes all those hurdles, and we do end up with a hung Parliament, unless Labour are the largest party, he may find it hard to convince the SNP and Lib Dems to actively vote with him to evict Johnson from Number Ten. They may both prefer to abstain.
Starmer would have to offer them both a carrot of course ie indyref2 and devomax for the SNP and closer alignment to the single market and customs union for the LDs
PR
For the LDs maybe, PR would not benefit the SNP at Westminster but it would the LDs who would become near permanent kingmakers
And to have any chance of Lib Dem backing, the government of the day would have to be moderate Conservative or moderate Labour. Neither would be precisely my cup of tea, but I would not tear my hair out with either of those. And the government would be kept honest.
What is there in that not to like?
Corbynistas would not like PR as it means there would almost never be a Labour majority and rightwing Tories would not like PR as there would almost never be a Tory majority but yes Blairite Labour and One Nation Tories would quickly adapt to stay in power (though we would likely end up with 5 or 6 main parties than 2 or 3 anyway as all could win MPs in a way FPTP prevents)
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Very rarely happens. In thaty case there was a specific problem to do with company UK-wide policies. If that is all you can bring up, it says a great deal about how unusual it is.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
JCVI resisting cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. Think the government should overrule them and do it anyway. If it means under 40s need a third dose in November we can deal with it then. Making people wait until September to be fully immunised when they can do it now is, IMO, negligent.
We are going to see a huge stockpile of Pfizer doses in the next few weeks because of this decision. Hopefully Javid has the balls to ignore them and go for a 3/4 week gap for Pfizer and Moderna.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists). Unless the street layout and furniture is very well designed with cyclists in mind I am not surprised at all that the 20mph zones increase accidents.
OK. Trying a serious response.
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits on those schemes.
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
As I have said repeatedly about airbridge travel policy.....you only learn that a country might have a problem when they have already have a f##king massive problem...
I'm sure Robert Thompson and David L will arrive to say I'm making this up but in case I'm not can they explain why the UK have the second most new casesin the world behind Indonesia and 35 times the number in France?
However they and their fellow shills paint it it doesn't look good and it's no wonder they don't want the English going over at the moment
Fully vaccinated UK 51.4% France 36.8%
The UK is unlocking as we have vaccinated. France isn't. That's a failure by France not the other way around.
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
Not an expert but seeing as lots of diseases with R < 1 continue indefinitely I think this must be wrong. R=0.9 is a societal thing, an average of loads of different individual Rs based on both peoples interactions and their immune systems. There will be pockets of communities where R>1, at least for periods, even when the national or global R=0.9, so the disease can continue to exist for many years, it just wont get to sustained exponential growth.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
At the moment, if Labour offer the SNP devomax and indyref2 for voting on English domestic legislation they would change course and do so.
Labour would obviously only put forward legislation for an indyref2 after they had a confidence and supply agreement signed with the SNP that SNP MPs would vote on English domestic legislation
Really?
How do you think that would go down with both English and Scottish voters?
That is not the kind of thing you put down in writing. Especially since no non coalition partner ever agrees to back you all the time with a blank cheque. Heck even your own backbenchers don't. As May found out to to her peril when her confidence and supply agreement didn't allow her to pass bills.
Nonetheless any agreement would have to include a commitment from the SNP not to automatically abstain on English domestic legislation, otherwise Starmer would not be able to get his English legislation through assuming the Tories still had a majority of English MPs even if not UK MPs
"I'm not doing my homework tonight because I've left the exercise book in the next door garden and the dog might eat it."
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Speaking of lies, any word on that article that suggested that the 2 Kenmore St arrestees in Glasgow were people smugglers?
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
All of the above is reasonable - however we have seen the virus evolve and the impression of 'we are nearly there' has been around before, but we haven't been.
I think this winter will be difficult and we may see a big jump in flu cases at the same time because we had very few last time - but yes it's possible COVID will disappear by next Winter 2022/2023. In theory.
Not disappear but become increasingly unimportant. The danger of this virus is that it is novel. Ultimately everyone will have got it or been vaccinated against it and thus better able to fight it off the next time they do so.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
All of the above is reasonable - however we have seen the virus evolve and the impression of 'we are nearly there' has been around before, but we haven't been.
I think this winter will be difficult and we may see a big jump in flu cases at the same time because we had very few last time - but yes it's possible COVID will disappear by next Winter 2022/2023. In theory.
Not disappear but become increasingly unimportant. The danger of this virus is that it is novel. Ultimately everyone will have got it or been vaccinated against it and thus better able to fight it off the next time they do so.
It will become one of the range of annoying viruses you can catch in Winter.
Pathetic seeing MPs from the Opposition and people like May claiming that Britain spending 0.5% of GDP on Foreign Aid ... More than almost every other G7 nation and more than Blair spent ... As being "mean" etc.
If the government get overruled tonight they should ensure that any rebels constituencies etc are well down the pecking order for future expenditure to make up the extra £4 billion spent on Aid.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
It's absolutely tragic what's happening in SA. The country is on fire due to rioting and violence by supporters of Zuma.
The worst performing share in my portfolio last few days has been Old Mutual (South African bank and insurer) .Cannot help think its connected to the troubles
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
It's absolutely tragic what's happening in SA. The country is on fire due to rioting and violence by supporters of Zuma.
The worst performing share in my portfolio last few days has been Old Mutual (South African bank and insurer) .Cannot help think its connected to the troubles
See my post downthread about insuring shit in ZA. There are surely less edgy investments?
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
Yeah. Foreign news appears to have disappeared. Apart from the US and Israel/Palestine. Probably lack of correspondents and a pandemic. We are interested, but I suspect few others are.
I've recently restarted listening to the BBC World Service.
Pathetic seeing MPs from the Opposition and people like May claiming that Britain spending 0.5% of GDP on Foreign Aid ... More than almost every other G7 nation and more than Blair spent ... As being "mean" etc.
If the government get overruled tonight they should ensure that any rebels constituencies etc are well down the pecking order for future expenditure to make up the extra £4 billion spent on Aid.
First they came for constituencies that refused to vote Conservative, then they came for constituencies whose Con mps didn’t vote with the government..
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
All of the above is reasonable - however we have seen the virus evolve and the impression of 'we are nearly there' has been around before, but we haven't been.
I think this winter will be difficult and we may see a big jump in flu cases at the same time because we had very few last time - but yes it's possible COVID will disappear by next Winter 2022/2023. In theory.
Not disappear but become increasingly unimportant. The danger of this virus is that it is novel. Ultimately everyone will have got it or been vaccinated against it and thus better able to fight it off the next time they do so.
It will become one of the range of annoying viruses you can catch in Winter.
Yep. I still like the theory that the last coronavirus pandemic was the 1890 “Russian Flu” which posits that the cause of that is now one of our many common cold viruses.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Absolutely agreed, they do what suits their own agenda.
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
Yeah. Foreign news appears to have disappeared. Apart from the US and Israel/Palestine. Probably lack of correspondents and a pandemic. We are interested, but I suspect few others are.
I've recently restarted listening to the BBC World Service.
Pathetic seeing MPs from the Opposition and people like May claiming that Britain spending 0.5% of GDP on Foreign Aid ... More than almost every other G7 nation and more than Blair spent ... As being "mean" etc.
If the government get overruled tonight they should ensure that any rebels constituencies etc are well down the pecking order for future expenditure to make up the extra £4 billion spent on Aid.
First they came for constituencies that refused to vote Conservative, then they came for constituencies whose Con mps didn’t vote with the government..
Well if those constituencies MPs would rather spend money overseas instead of within the constituency then that is their MPs choice.
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
Not an expert but seeing as lots of diseases with R < 1 continue indefinitely I think this must be wrong. R=0.9 is a societal thing, an average of loads of different individual Rs based on both peoples interactions and their immune systems. There will be pockets of communities where R>1, at least for periods, even when the national or global R=0.9, so the disease can continue to exist for many years, it just wont get to sustained exponential growth.
I don't think it will ever disappear, but I also don't understand the public positions of a large number of scientists who seem to be acting as if the vaccines don't work, and there is no pre-existing convalescent immunity in the country in unvaccinated groups. It's hard to see how we don't hit a mathematical ceiling soon. Could be a fair bit of growth to come but then we are past the HIT.
Then what happens, presumably, is barring a few periodic flare ups during future winters (a la flu) we have another endemic coronavirus circulating in the population, regularly mutating a little to escape prior immunity and spread, but rarely causing serious illness.
What will be interesting to see is whether our political tolerance of seasonal flu hospitalisations and deaths changes after Covid. In previous years media have talked euphemistically about "NHS winter crises" but the remedy proposed by health workers has always been more investment in healthcare rather than interventions like lockdowns. I would be very surprised if we don't see, in due course (perhaps winter 2022/3 assuming flu will be suppressed a bit this winter again) strong arguments from the medical profession to bring in seasonal restrictions, mask mandates, closures of large venues etc to protect against all circulating respiratory infections.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
The Economist is biased - just like all media is. But of all the periodicals we get, the Economist is the last that would go in an economy drive. Its coverage of events around the world is brilliant, and it is worth getting for its coverage of science alone.
I see it a bit like Radio 4. I can turn R4 on and listen to a random program and find stuff of interest, in areas I might not ordinarily delve. It is wonderful. The Economist is the same in print - it covers lots of things that I wouldn't normally have read about, but I'm glad I did. If I disagree with an article's tone or position, they're generally written so well that you can ignore that and just get to the facts.
If I was on a desert island, I would want the Economist air-dropped to me every week. Forget the bible and Shakespeare.
If the reopening gamble does go disastrously wrong, Sunak will hardly be in a good position to succeed, what with "Eat Out to Help the Virus Out " and "Stop Wearing a Mask as soon as it's Legally Possible" being his best known pronouncements on the subject!
I just can't see it going disastrously long. its not as if people are waiting until the 19th to suddenly bound free. Most, I suspect, have been ignoring or bending the restrictions since April. Yes masks in places, but do you really believe the rule of 6 has been followed? Effectively the 19th will allow hospitality to catch up with society, and hopefully make some money.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
In any case they didn’t end up having to vote on the Hunting Act, as I recall the mere threat made the big, brave Tories run away.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
I find to read the Economist from cover to cover ,I have to be abroad on holiday . The combination of time to do it and the international setting I am in seems to match the content. usually in a happy mood on holiday as well which generally matches the Economist's optimism . I think they could expand their arts section a little and have a section on sport (no write ups as such but maybe results and not football centric)
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Absolutely agreed, they do what suits their own agenda.
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
But if in last Pmt it was under EVEL so no problem. If it's good enough for the Speaker and the Clerks ...
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Absolutely agreed, they do what suits their own agenda.
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
But if in last Pmt it was under EVEL so no problem. If it's good enough for the Speaker and the Clerks ...
That's now how EVEL worked.
SNP MPs could still vote against English-only motions when it came to the full house reading of the bill even under EVEL. That's why EVEL was a pathetic fudge.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
In any case they didn’t end up having to vote on the Hunting Act, as I recall the mere threat made the big, brave Tories run away.
Thanks, so we can scratch that one, which leaves only the shops one.
Memory has come back re the shops one: it was I think becauyse of the different Sunday opening legislation - given companies UK wide policies, the changes in England would have been applied to the detriment of the staff in Scotland in unintended ways. Or so the staff unions found and asked the Scxottish Gmt to make sure their members were represented. As I say, it was a cross border issue.
7. Even if Starmer passes all those hurdles, and we do end up with a hung Parliament, unless Labour are the largest party, he may find it hard to convince the SNP and Lib Dems to actively vote with him to evict Johnson from Number Ten. They may both prefer to abstain.
Starmer would have to offer them both a carrot of course ie indyref2 and devomax for the SNP and closer alignment to the single market and customs union for the LDs
That's possible, but then Ed Davey is left with a decision. How likely is it that Labour can deliver what they promise?
Such a coalition could have a small majority, vulnerable to backbench rebellions from any of the three parties in it.
At each point this erodes the likelihood that Starmer becomes PM.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
I might agree with this with the current boundaries in place, but the boundary review should increase the Tory majority from 80 to at least 100.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
I find to read the Economist from cover to cover ,I have to be abroad on holiday . The combination of time to do it and the international setting I am in seems to match the content. usually in a happy mood on holiday as well which generally matches the Economist's optimism . I think they could expand their arts section a little and have a section on sport (no write ups as such but maybe results and not football centric)
It used to be my cover to cover reading for airports and flights when travelling with business. I miss it - like you, I would never think of picking it up from the local newsagent in normal times. Have to be travelling.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Absolutely agreed, they do what suits their own agenda.
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
But if in last Pmt it was under EVEL so no problem. If it's good enough for the Speaker and the Clerks ...
That's now how EVEL worked.
SNP MPs could still vote against English-only motions when it came to the full house reading of the bill even under EVEL. That's why EVEL was a pathetic fudge.
But they didn't.
The foxes didn#'t get that far. And the shop hours was a cross border issue. It was certainly so in the view of those affected.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists). Unless the street layout and furniture is very well designed with cyclists in mind I am not surprised at all that the 20mph zones increase accidents.
OK. Trying a serious response.
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits on those schemes.
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
But at least this is a small - if untidy - start.
On the cyclists doing 20mph point, that's very fast for a commuter cyclist and, to an extent, will be the result of the danger posed by cars and their drivers meaning that only very fit, brave and enthusiastic people are willing to cycle.
I cycle about 17 miles round trip most days to get in and out of town and am probably in the top 10-20% of commuters for speed on my routes (admittedly I avoid main roads like the plague because I don't want to die young), yet 20mph is sprint speed for me, not something I can keep up for all that long.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
I find to read the Economist from cover to cover ,I have to be abroad on holiday . The combination of time to do it and the international setting I am in seems to match the content. usually in a happy mood on holiday as well which generally matches the Economist's optimism . I think they could expand their arts section a little and have a section on sport (no write ups as such but maybe results and not football centric)
I was an obsessive reader and subscriber of the Economist from about 2002 to 2012. The problem is that eventually I could guess what they were going to write before I read it.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
Oh, it's either to let Mr Gove stand and win a Scottish Westminster constituency but still become Prime Minister of the UK.
Or it's to let Mr HYUFD make up horror stories abotut he nasty hairy SNP lurking under the bed.
I think those are about the best two I have been able to think of, including canvassing PB.
As HYUFD himself is already agreeing with me on option 2 and demonstrating said activity, which do you think is more likely?
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
Absolutely agreed, they do what suits their own agenda.
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
But if in last Pmt it was under EVEL so no problem. If it's good enough for the Speaker and the Clerks ...
That's now how EVEL worked.
SNP MPs could still vote against English-only motions when it came to the full house reading of the bill even under EVEL. That's why EVEL was a pathetic fudge.
PS Fair enough. But its main value was symbolic - and hugely so on the morning after the 2014 referendum.
To delete it without replacing it is a very odd thing to do in any raqtional sense.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
The thing is, all conservative Prime Ministers are utterly desperate not to be the one who lost the union.
That's for light weights. Really rich people hire private doctors who prescribe for them. And then get their prescriptions turned into NHS prescriptions.
So *you* pay for *their* pharamceutical grade drugs.
Pakistan trying some cunning new tactics. First, don't allow all your top order to be dismissed in the first power play. Second, score some runs. The run rate is slow but it has some potential.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists). Unless the street layout and furniture is very well designed with cyclists in mind I am not surprised at all that the 20mph zones increase accidents.
OK. Trying a serious response.
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits on those schemes.
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
But at least this is a small - if untidy - start.
On the cyclists doing 20mph point, that's very fast for a commuter cyclist and, to an extent, will be the result of the danger posed by cars and their drivers meaning that only very fit, brave and enthusiastic people are willing to cycle.
I cycle about 17 miles round trip most days to get in and out of town and am probably in the top 10-20% of commuters for speed on my routes (admittedly I avoid main roads like the plague because I don't want to die young), yet 20mph is sprint speed for me, not something I can keep up for all that long.
London may be different as it is disproportionately young and also very stop start even for cyclists so the top speeds are not sustained regardless. Also if the speed limit is 20mph it is not unusual for the lead car to travel at 18mph according to their speedo to be safe, which is more likely to be 16mph than 18mph in reality because we dont have accurate speedos.
Considering you spend a great deal of time showing us that Guernsey isn't doing whatever Jersey is doing ... [edit] which is actually very interesting!
That's for light weights. Really rich people hire private doctors who prescribe for them. And then get their prescriptions turned into NHS prescriptions.
So *you* pay for *their* pharamceutical grade drugs.
It is quite possible to get an NHS doctor to re-write a prescription from a private doctor. Indeed, it is often done - I have done so for legitimate reasons.
Right now that Tory vote is really firm, it hasn’t dipped below 39% since January. When events occur like Cummings or Hancock they tend to be temporary blips. Labour need a right wing party like BXP or Reform in the mix because when it comes to an election fought on cultural issues Conservative voters only have one obvious home, and if they only manage 39% that will still probably hand them a reasonable majority.
Out of curiosity do private donations to Foreign Aid charities count towards the 0.5% or 0.7% of GNI for Foreign Aid?
It should do, since the percentage is a percentage of GNI and not a percentage of government expenditure, it would be hypocritical to include the private sector in the denominator but to exclude it from the expenditure.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
The thing is, all conservative Prime Ministers are utterly desperate not to be the one who lost the union.
What is clear from yesterday, is the government advisors don't think covid isn't going anywhere. There will be a summer wave, then a winter covod / flu crisis, etc.
We are been setup for years of this. And of course that will be part of politics as well.
Unfortunately you are correct. We need to dig in for the (very) long haul.
The right balance needs to be struck between freedom and caution. Personal responsibility is part of that, but there is a real risk that the Government will need to reintroduce restrictions at some point in time.
Genuine question: why wouldn't covid just end once we have reached her immunity? Surely that is the point of herd immunity? My understanding - and it is based on no expertise, only what I have read in the same sources that everyone else has - is that even the nastiest variants have an R0 which will be lower than 5 or 6 - and we can get to a level of antibodies in the population needed to beat that level through a mixture of vaccination and infection - indeed, we are already quite close to it and the exit wave should see us over the line.
Covid probably won't be able to escape the combined forces of vaccination and infection because the evolutionary paths it can go down while still remaining infectious are limited.
It won't end instantly - an R of 0.9 where we have 50,000 infections will take a long time to get down to zero - but it will end. Maybe not this winter, but almost certainly by next. In theory.
Has anything changed to change this point of view?
Not an expert but seeing as lots of diseases with R < 1 continue indefinitely I think this must be wrong. R=0.9 is a societal thing, an average of loads of different individual Rs based on both peoples interactions and their immune systems. There will be pockets of communities where R>1, at least for periods, even when the national or global R=0.9, so the disease can continue to exist for many years, it just wont get to sustained exponential growth.
It will find it a lot harder, but some immunity will wane and in some places there will be pockets with less immunity. But yes this is how pandemics end. The issue we have is the 'herd immunity' has become a tarnished phrase, but it shouldn't be. We are reaching for the vast majority with vaccination, combined with some infection/recovery. This is fantastic. Doing it the hard way was not really going to be acceptable with a CFR of 1%, especially if it collapsed healthcare in the process.
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
The thing is, all conservative Prime Ministers are utterly desperate not to be the one who lost the union.
The Scots know this. And they play it well.
But removing EVEL: is relevant how?
EVEL is a pathetic joke as it stands, especially when the government have an 80 seat majority. As has already been shown by the Scots voting down English only laws on trading hours and fox hunting etc when the majority was smaller.
It should be replaced with something that actually works, but I'm not holding my breath.
That's for light weights. Really rich people hire private doctors who prescribe for them. And then get their prescriptions turned into NHS prescriptions.
So *you* pay for *their* pharamceutical grade drugs.
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
I think this was pointed out the other day - the general public do not know which version of Labour he stands for and believes in.
Out of curiosity do private donations to Foreign Aid charities count towards the 0.5% or 0.7% of GNI for Foreign Aid?
It should do, since the percentage is a percentage of GNI and not a percentage of government expenditure, it would be hypocritical to include the private sector in the denominator but to exclude it from the expenditure.
It doesn't
The real issue here is the lack of notice - we are now cutting down on things that we agreed to pay for as the money isn't available anymore.
That's a valid point. I guess unsurprising as i somehow doubt your Piers Corbyn types are happy to log their health data into an app in the first place!
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
He has less charisma than John Major. Might be one of the problems.
I think there is near zero chance of a Labour majority in 2023/24 but there is a significant chance of Starmer becoming PM in a hung parliament if Labour win back a few Red Wall seats and the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats like Chesham and Amersham in the South.
On that basis Starmer could become UK PM with LD and SNP support even if the Tories still win most seats and even if Boris wins a Tory majority in England again.
Boris would easily be re elected as PM of England, however as PM of the UK his re election is much less certain
Also should be noted the DUP would likely now abstain rather than prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017 after he put a border in the Irish Sea and Starmer said he opposed a United Ireland unlike Corbyn.
To stay PM after the next general election Boris therefore has to win another overall majority
I don't think that is quite right. Whilst Mike is right that no other party is likely to want to go into coalition with the Conservatives led by Boris, it doesn't follow that in a hung parliament where he narrowly misses getting a majority that there will be any other viable alternative coalition or arrangement. A very weak, probably short-lived, Tory minority government might be the only possibility in such a scenario.
Possibly but it would have to be SF that has the balance of power in that scenario ie the Tories very close to an overall majority anyway and SF refuse still to take their seats.
Otherwise Boris could find he faces the fate of the Nationals Bill English in New Zealand in 2017, the Conservatives win most seats but Starmer like Ardern gets Labour into power by backroom deals with other parties
Backroom deals with the SNP, PC, the LibDems, maybe a Green or two, AND the DUP all at the same time would be very challenging. It requires the parties simultaneously to think such deals are in their interests, but their interests are conflicting.
Plus such a deal would leave the PM impotent on English only matters where the SNP would abstain (and Westminster disorder is good news for the SNP).
Labour could benefit more from leaving a wounded Tory government on its last legs reliant upon the DUP before getting put out of its misery at the next election. As could have happened in 2017 had the Opposition not played into the Tories internal opposition's hands.
Not if the Tories scrap EVEL as Gove wants it wouldn't, then Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour MPs could and would vote on English domestic legislation if that was part of an SNP deal with Starmer in return for devomax and indyref2.
As I said the DUP will not support the Tories again unless and until they remove the Irish Sea border
The SNP would abstain on English matters. They always have done, plus if the Labour government is incompetent and can't get votes through Parliament then the SNP can keep demanding a price to be paid.
If a second referendum is already on the cards, which would be a prerequisite before a Queens Speech even, then having Westminster shown to be not working is good news for the SNP not bad news. They have no incentive to vote on English only matters once the bill has been passed for a referendum.
The SNP lies about that
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
They do indeed. They indicated an intention under Cameron to vote on a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act which is E&W only.
Because of the perceived cruelty and sadism etc. There may also have been cross border issues such as pest and disease control, but I can't recall the details. I think however it was a mistake.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL? (b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
The EVEL abandonment is the most utterly incomprehensible thing I can think of any government having done.
The thing is, all conservative Prime Ministers are utterly desperate not to be the one who lost the union.
The Scots know this. And they play it well.
But removing EVEL: is relevant how?
EVEL is a pathetic joke as it stands, especially when the government have an 80 seat majority. As has already been shown by the Scots voting down English only laws on trading hours and fox hunting etc when the majority was smaller.
It should be replaced with something that actually works, but I'm not holding my breath.
The trading was not English only! And the fox vote never happened (not that I agree with it tbf).
Still, one thing to leave it alone - it was a symbolic barrier even if it is a red and white striped wooden pole rather than a line of concrete dragon's teeth - but another to take it away sans replacement.
That's for light weights. Really rich people hire private doctors who prescribe for them. And then get their prescriptions turned into NHS prescriptions.
So *you* pay for *their* pharamceutical grade drugs.
Out of curiosity do private donations to Foreign Aid charities count towards the 0.5% or 0.7% of GNI for Foreign Aid?
It should do, since the percentage is a percentage of GNI and not a percentage of government expenditure, it would be hypocritical to include the private sector in the denominator but to exclude it from the expenditure.
It doesn't
The real issue here is the lack of notice - we are now cutting down on things that we agreed to pay for as the money isn't available anymore.
I expected so. If it did include them we'd probably not have so many adverts on TV for international aid charities.
As for lack of notice, perhaps others giving less than we are can step up to the plate now that British money isn't the only answer?
Pakistan trying some cunning new tactics. First, don't allow all your top order to be dismissed in the first power play. Second, score some runs. The run rate is slow but it has some potential.
Looks like they are trying the old England approach of the era before Morgan. Might work, might not...
Right now that Tory vote is really firm, it hasn’t dipped below 39% since January. When events occur like Cummings or Hancock they tend to be temporary blips. Labour need a right wing party like BXP or Reform in the mix because when it comes to an election fought on cultural issues Conservative voters only have one obvious home, and if they only manage 39% that will still probably hand them a reasonable majority.
Actually figures of Tories 39%, Labour 35% and LDs 12% would see a hung parliament with the Tories 17 short
Pakistan trying some cunning new tactics. First, don't allow all your top order to be dismissed in the first power play. Second, score some runs. The run rate is slow but it has some potential.
Looks like they are trying the old England approach of the era before Morgan. Might work, might not...
The problem is that if they don't get Phil Salt out in the first 5 overs they are toast.
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
Absolutely, in conjunction with @LostPassword's great post.
He needs to convince me to vote for him and I have no idea what he stands for. Fairness, equality, blah, blah but what exactly?
He also, and I only say this every time I post on SKS, needs to start opposing. Why vote for someone who has voted for the govt at every available opportunity to date?
The honest conversation the government needs to have is realistically pretty much all of us are going to contract covid at some point, if the scientists talk of it being about for years to come.
This could be the first sign we've reached herd immunity.
It could.
Or being somewhere close to herd immunity with the rise in cases nudging people to be a bit more circumspect, just enough to take R under 1.
Or just a bit of random noise.
We'll know we're at herd immunity when all restrictions are lifted, working patterns have got back to normal (whatever 'normal' will be, post pandemic, if there are long term changes in working patterns) and people seem to be behaving as they did before Covid and numbers of new infections are still falling.
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
He has less charisma than John Major. Might be one of the problems.
I think part of the problem is the legal background. He is skilled at presenting whatever case he is asked to make. The problem is that he is using that presentation style in politics.
Curiously, I was debating this at lunch with a pal today. Starmer is intelligent, articulate, reasonable, honest (for a politician), decent and has a strong background of public service. What is it that makes him so unattractive as a potential PM? He really should be much better thought of than he is.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
I think this was pointed out the other day - the general public do not know which version of Labour he stands for and believes in.
Pakistan trying some cunning new tactics. First, don't allow all your top order to be dismissed in the first power play. Second, score some runs. The run rate is slow but it has some potential.
Looks like they are trying the old England approach of the era before Morgan. Might work, might not...
The problem is that if they don't get Phil Salt out in the first 5 overs they are toast.
I like the new England approach of going hard up front. In a series it works more often than not, especially on flat pitches. Its more risky in one off games, such as the world cup, as you can suddenly find yourself in the stew.
In the past 30 days the US has sequenced 2.8 per cent of its positive Covid cases and shared that information with GISAID, the leading global genomic database that helps keep track of new variants.
By comparison, the UK and Israel, countries which have similarly high rates of vaccination, have sequenced cases and shared data at about triple that rate: 9.3 per cent and 8.5 per cent, respectively.
It also took the US more than two weeks to add its data to GISAID, versus nine days for the UK and 12 days for Israel.
(As an aside I think it’s poor that the British media focus so much on domestic trivia and, if they do international, just touch upon Brussels and Beijing in so far as it affects us, but get massively obsessed by America. There’s a whole world out there.)
If you think our media doesn't do much international news try US media outside CNN
Sure, the US is worse but that's no excuse.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
They don't just try - they do to an extent unmatched by any other newspaper or magazine. No-one else even comes close. And, as a friend of mine who worked there said, the result is a lot of unread articles. But it's why I still bother with it, despite the woke demonizing.
I find to read the Economist from cover to cover ,I have to be abroad on holiday . The combination of time to do it and the international setting I am in seems to match the content. usually in a happy mood on holiday as well which generally matches the Economist's optimism . I think they could expand their arts section a little and have a section on sport (no write ups as such but maybe results and not football centric)
It used to be my cover to cover reading for airports and flights when travelling with business. I miss it - like you, I would never think of picking it up from the local newsagent in normal times. Have to be travelling.
On sports: I used to watch Trans World Sport on Ch4 (usually early on Sunday mornings). It was a great way to keep up with what was happening in sports around the world, including sections on really obscure sports and up-and-coming sports people. Each section short enough to allow me to zone out if it's uninteresting to me.
Sadly, if its still broadcast then I neve seem to catch it ...
Pakistan trying some cunning new tactics. First, don't allow all your top order to be dismissed in the first power play. Second, score some runs. The run rate is slow but it has some potential.
Looks like they are trying the old England approach of the era before Morgan. Might work, might not...
The problem is that if they don't get Phil Salt out in the first 5 overs they are toast.
I like the new England approach of going hard up front. In a series it works more often than not, especially on flat pitches. Its more risky in one off games, such as the world cup, as you can suddenly find yourself in the stew.
It also allows you to take advantage of the fielding restrictions in the powerplay.
This could be the first sign we've reached herd immunity.
It could.
Or being somewhere close to herd immunity with the rise in cases nudging people to be a bit more circumspect, just enough to take R under 1.
Or just a bit of random noise.
We'll know we're at herd immunity when all restrictions are lifted, working patterns have got back to normal (whatever 'normal' will be, post pandemic, if there are long term changes in working patterns) and people seem to be behaving as they did before Covid and numbers of new infections are still falling.
The other interesting point is that in every situation where COVID has been allowed to increase, without lockdown, it dies away again. Long, long before everyone has antibodies.
Why this is, we don't know. RCS, of this parish, suggests that it is a kind of voluntary lockdown. At a certain case level everyone hides.
Yet, in such places, when the cases fall, activity rapidly returns to normal(ish). But COVID doesn't return.
7. Even if Starmer passes all those hurdles, and we do end up with a hung Parliament, unless Labour are the largest party, he may find it hard to convince the SNP and Lib Dems to actively vote with him to evict Johnson from Number Ten. They may both prefer to abstain.
Starmer would have to offer them both a carrot of course ie indyref2 and devomax for the SNP and closer alignment to the single market and customs union for the LDs
PR
For the LDs maybe, PR would not benefit the SNP at Westminster but it would the LDs who would become near permanent kingmakers
Nah. In no country where they have changed to PR has the previous party setup remained unchanged. The FDP were supposed to be permanent kingmakers in Germany, for example; that's rather changed. PR changes the way people consider casting their votes and makes parties more vulnerable to being overtaken and replaced. Which is for the better; why should political parties be immune to the forces of creative destruction? Let them worry about real competition.
Comments
For example in the last parliament the SNP voted against a proposal to extend shop opening hours in England. They came up with some excuse as to why it would impact Scotland but it was tenuous
However they and their fellow shills paint it it doesn't look good and it's no wonder they don't want the English going over at the moment
Probably lack of correspondents and a pandemic.
We are interested, but I suspect few others are.
Whatever happened to the Syrian Civil War?
Very rarely happens. In thaty case there was a specific problem to do with company UK-wide policies. If that is all you can bring up, it says a great deal about how unusual it is.
I stopped buying The Economist because I got tired of their BS but at least they tried to report on everywhere.
We are going to see a huge stockpile of Pfizer doses in the next few weeks because of this decision. Hopefully Javid has the balls to ignore them and go for a 3/4 week gap for Pfizer and Moderna.
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits on those schemes.
ROSPA demonstrate that people in cars who choose to break speed limits have more accidents.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/inappropriate-speed.pdf
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
But at least this is a small - if untidy - start.
UK 51.4%
France 36.8%
The UK is unlocking as we have vaccinated. France isn't. That's a failure by France not the other way around.
https://twitter.com/ganeshran/status/1414925404482195477?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/13/doctors-warn-of-devastating-consequences-of-lifting-covid-rules-in-england
If the government get overruled tonight they should ensure that any rebels constituencies etc are well down the pecking order for future expenditure to make up the extra £4 billion spent on Aid.
But even so if those are the only two that can be brough tup in 2-3 decades, that's not saying much, with the shop opening one being an arguable one (it was evidently good enough for the Speaker under EVEL).
In any case, if this is so tewwibly tewwibl;y awful,
(a) why are the Tories abandoning EVEL?
(b) Why were they happy to accept Scottish MP votes over such things as English tuition fees? (Though tbf some ScoTory MPs like the SNP abstained on that as I recvall.)
But the problem for Labour is that the SNPs agenda is to make Westminster look incompetent so that voters vote Yes in an independence referendum, it is not to make everything smooth sailing for a Labour Prime Minister.
Then what happens, presumably, is barring a few periodic flare ups during future winters (a la flu) we have another endemic coronavirus circulating in the population, regularly mutating a little to escape prior immunity and spread, but rarely causing serious illness.
What will be interesting to see is whether our political tolerance of seasonal flu hospitalisations and deaths changes after Covid. In previous years media have talked euphemistically about "NHS winter crises" but the remedy proposed by health workers has always been more investment in healthcare rather than interventions like lockdowns. I would be very surprised if we don't see, in due course (perhaps winter 2022/3 assuming flu will be suppressed a bit this winter again) strong arguments from the medical profession to bring in seasonal restrictions, mask mandates, closures of large venues etc to protect against all circulating respiratory infections.
Silly me. Zero covidians with an agenda, of course.
I see it a bit like Radio 4. I can turn R4 on and listen to a random program and find stuff of interest, in areas I might not ordinarily delve. It is wonderful. The Economist is the same in print - it covers lots of things that I wouldn't normally have read about, but I'm glad I did. If I disagree with an article's tone or position, they're generally written so well that you can ignore that and just get to the facts.
If I was on a desert island, I would want the Economist air-dropped to me every week. Forget the bible and Shakespeare.
SNP MPs could still vote against English-only motions when it came to the full house reading of the bill even under EVEL. That's why EVEL was a pathetic fudge.
Memory has come back re the shops one: it was I think becauyse of the different Sunday opening legislation - given companies UK wide policies, the changes in England would have been applied to the detriment of the staff in Scotland in unintended ways. Or so the staff unions found and asked the Scxottish Gmt to make sure their members were represented. As I say, it was a cross border issue.
Such a coalition could have a small majority, vulnerable to backbench rebellions from any of the three parties in it.
At each point this erodes the likelihood that Starmer becomes PM.
The foxes didn#'t get that far. And the shop hours was a cross border issue. It was certainly so in the view of those affected.
I cycle about 17 miles round trip most days to get in and out of town and am probably in the top 10-20% of commuters for speed on my routes (admittedly I avoid main roads like the plague because I don't want to die young), yet 20mph is sprint speed for me, not something I can keep up for all that long.
Or it's to let Mr HYUFD make up horror stories abotut he nasty hairy SNP lurking under the bed.
I think those are about the best two I have been able to think of, including canvassing PB.
As HYUFD himself is already agreeing with me on option 2 and demonstrating said activity, which do you think is more likely?
To delete it without replacing it is a very odd thing to do in any raqtional sense.
The Scots know this. And they play it well.
I thought the system was that a private prescription by definition included the patient paying the cost of the private doctor plus the cost of the medicament (to use a Bercow word).
https://lloydspharmacy.com/blogs/prescriptions/how-much-is-a-private-prescription
https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/first-ministers-statement-covid-19-update-july-13-2021
It should do, since the percentage is a percentage of GNI and not a percentage of government expenditure, it would be hypocritical to include the private sector in the denominator but to exclude it from the expenditure.
The issue we have is the 'herd immunity' has become a tarnished phrase, but it shouldn't be. We are reaching for the vast majority with vaccination, combined with some infection/recovery. This is fantastic. Doing it the hard way was not really going to be acceptable with a CFR of 1%, especially if it collapsed healthcare in the process.
I think the answer is that he does not have a distinctive voice. I don't know what he thinks. I don't know how he wants to change this country (other than making himself PM). What does he care about? What needs fixed? He really needs to tell us. Its possible more might agree with him than he apparently fears.
https://twitter.com/RufusSG/status/1414932768644026379?s=20
It should be replaced with something that actually works, but I'm not holding my breath.
The real issue here is the lack of notice - we are now cutting down on things that we agreed to pay for as the money isn't available anymore.
Still, one thing to leave it alone - it was a symbolic barrier even if it is a red and white striped wooden pole rather than a line of concrete dragon's teeth - but another to take it away sans replacement.
As for lack of notice, perhaps others giving less than we are can step up to the plate now that British money isn't the only answer?
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=12&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
He needs to convince me to vote for him and I have no idea what he stands for. Fairness, equality, blah, blah but what exactly?
He also, and I only say this every time I post on SKS, needs to start opposing. Why vote for someone who has voted for the govt at every available opportunity to date?
Or being somewhere close to herd immunity with the rise in cases nudging people to be a bit more circumspect, just enough to take R under 1.
Or just a bit of random noise.
We'll know we're at herd immunity when all restrictions are lifted, working patterns have got back to normal (whatever 'normal' will be, post pandemic, if there are long term changes in working patterns) and people seem to be behaving as they did before Covid and numbers of new infections are still falling.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1414926539402235907?s=20
In the past 30 days the US has sequenced 2.8 per cent of its positive Covid cases and shared that information with GISAID, the leading global genomic database that helps keep track of new variants.
By comparison, the UK and Israel, countries which have similarly high rates of vaccination, have sequenced cases and shared data at about triple that rate: 9.3 per cent and 8.5 per cent, respectively.
It also took the US more than two weeks to add its data to GISAID, versus nine days for the UK and 12 days for Israel.
https://www.ft.com/content/f8e83ce5-037f-469d-bee9-aaa37f6e2554
Sadly, if its still broadcast then I neve seem to catch it ...
Why this is, we don't know. RCS, of this parish, suggests that it is a kind of voluntary lockdown. At a certain case level everyone hides.
Yet, in such places, when the cases fall, activity rapidly returns to normal(ish). But COVID doesn't return.
In no country where they have changed to PR has the previous party setup remained unchanged. The FDP were supposed to be permanent kingmakers in Germany, for example; that's rather changed.
PR changes the way people consider casting their votes and makes parties more vulnerable to being overtaken and replaced. Which is for the better; why should political parties be immune to the forces of creative destruction? Let them worry about real competition.