Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A CON majority no longer outright favourite for next election – politicalbetting.com

2»

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    [snipped]

    On a different theme, I wasn't keeping track today: did you get to the Pnyx?
    Yes, and it was quite absorbing, tho not quite as epiphanic as the Athenian Agora. But that’s a high bar

    Athens is just stuffed with wonderful things to see. I’ve been here nine days (with a couple left) and I could do another week easily and not get bored

    Maybe the Pnyx didn’t totally wow me because I was wholly wowed earlier by lunch at the Acropolis Museum. It’s an utterly fantastic restaurant (seriously world class food) AND you get to eat it (and drink great Greek wine) with a majestic view of the Parthenon. That’s also a high bar

    I got sloshed and ate split pea with salami and squid and radish and weirdness and it was brilliant and I toasted the goddess Athena

    I don’t know if you missed our earlier discussion of modern Greek food (at least in Athens) but it is genuinely first rate. You eat better in Athens, on average, than Paris, very easily. Possibly better than London or Madrid. AND it is markedly cheaper
    Well! That's something to add to the bucket list, on which the Wasa, the Aland Islands, and the Finnish Tank Museum are already inscribed. And a ride on the Viking ships at Roskilde.

    On which: I have no idea if Hellenic Navy Ship Olympias the trieres/trireme is even accessible to the public. Probably not. And it won't be rowing around. Not easy to drum up so many rowers at once, never mind socially distanced. Thouigh I did meet one on the train once.
    Add the Solovetsky Islands. In the White Sea. Notably difficult to reach but one of THE great travel destinations.

    Plus you get to boast forever after. Simply because you’ve been. I did it in 2019

    “Oh yes my favourite holidays was in the Solovetsky Islands”

    “Where???”

    “Oh it’s a remote Russian archipelago in the White Sea, and a sacred mediaeval site of Orthodoxy, with a sensational microclimate, and it was the first Gulag, and Peter the Great built a chapel on an island of lesbians, and they make the world’s best fish and chips, have you not been? You just need to go to St Petersburg then get a night train then persuade a driver to take you to the tiny port which is only open two months a year, it’s lovely”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovetsky_Islands
    Oh, bloody hell - I've read about those.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,834

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    I think the Labour Party would probably need at least 310 seats, and probably more like 315, to avoid needing the SNP.
    The really fun one would be the Tories on 300.

    Starmer would be better keeping the Tories in as a minority, than be utterly dependent on the SNP for every vote, and with a fresh election clearly coming quickly down the line.
    The Tories on life support until the plug is turned off would be good for Starmer.

    The risk is, a la Corbyn/May, that the Tories get a new leader that rejuvenates the party and finds a winning formula.

    I'm sceptical that trick can be repeated again though.
    It’s a situation that’s obvious when thinking about it calmly from afar, some years from the election. It’s s different scenario when you’re the actual LotO, have close to 300 MPs who just ‘won’ the election, and have a chance to kiss the Queen’s hand.

    The way it would play out in practice, is that for a few months every Bill would have a ‘Scotland Clause’ in it, until eventually either the Lab backbenchers or the SNP brought the whole sh!t-show crashing down, Starmer having made himself the most unpopular man in England and facing the People again.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    PBers: if you are accessing the site through a proxy server to hide your real IP address, and using a fake email address for registration, then I reserve the right to assume you are a troll and to ban you.

    I'm not naming names. Yet.

    I am Spartacus
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Mortimer said:

    Covid anecdote...

    A colleague in her twenties has been off work sick this week with you-know-what.

    Single jabbed, I think.

    And guess what - this is going to happen to most people in the coming years. A week off with a bad cold. Some people might have to go to hospital. Or worse.

    A bit like most respiratory viruses.
    I think what I saw in the chamber of the House of Commons today was 650 people desperately trying to come to terms with what they have been doing, what they are doing, and what options might now be open to them, given events.

    I don't think they have even started to grasp the reality of the situation. A situation that they, all of them, have brought about. They are completely at sea.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,611
    Late evening all :)

    There are two parts to the journey - one is preventing the Conservatives from forming the next Government and the other is establishing a stable alternative.

    I think you need to have the Conservatives lose at least 60 seats for the first part to happen.

    As for the second part, Labour aren't going to get a majority unless something dramatic happens - it is possible a non-Conservative majority could be constructed around Labour, SNP, the LDs and some others.

    Starmer is clearly anxious to avoid being portrayed, as EdM was, as "in the pocket of the SNP". The truth is possible anti-Conservative English voters would be driven back into the blue tent by the notion the Labour Government would be in any way controlled or influenced by the SNP.

    So, before the GE, it's hostility but as the past has shown us, what a politician says before the votes are cast and what he/she says after they are cast can be very different.

    I don't rule out Labour reaching out to the SNP, LDs and others after the election in the event of the numbers working and what they need to be thinking now is how they will play various scenarios.

    As to whether the Conservatives, having lost 60 seats, would want to carry on under Johnson after 14 years in Government, that's not a question I can answer.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    [snipped]

    On a different theme, I wasn't keeping track today: did you get to the Pnyx?
    Yes, and it was quite absorbing, tho not quite as epiphanic as the Athenian Agora. But that’s a high bar

    Athens is just stuffed with wonderful things to see. I’ve been here nine days (with a couple left) and I could do another week easily and not get bored

    Maybe the Pnyx didn’t totally wow me because I was wholly wowed earlier by lunch at the Acropolis Museum. It’s an utterly fantastic restaurant (seriously world class food) AND you get to eat it (and drink great Greek wine) with a majestic view of the Parthenon. That’s also a high bar

    I got sloshed and ate split pea with salami and squid and radish and weirdness and it was brilliant and I toasted the goddess Athena

    I don’t know if you missed our earlier discussion of modern Greek food (at least in Athens) but it is genuinely first rate. You eat better in Athens, on average, than Paris, very easily. Possibly better than London or Madrid. AND it is markedly cheaper
    Well! That's something to add to the bucket list, on which the Wasa, the Aland Islands, and the Finnish Tank Museum are already inscribed. And a ride on the Viking ships at Roskilde.

    On which: I have no idea if Hellenic Navy Ship Olympias the trieres/trireme is even accessible to the public. Probably not. And it won't be rowing around. Not easy to drum up so many rowers at once, never mind socially distanced. Thouigh I did meet one on the train once.
    Add the Solovetsky Islands. In the White Sea. Notably difficult to reach but one of THE great travel destinations.

    Plus you get to boast forever after. Simply because you’ve been. I did it in 2019

    “Oh yes my favourite holidays was in the Solovetsky Islands”

    “Where???”

    “Oh it’s a remote Russian archipelago in the White Sea, and a sacred mediaeval site of Orthodoxy, with a sensational microclimate, and it was the first Gulag, and Peter the Great built a chapel on an island of lesbians, and they make the world’s best fish and chips, have you not been? You just need to go to St Petersburg then get a night train then persuade a driver to take you to the tiny port which is only open two months a year, it’s lovely”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovetsky_Islands
    Oh, bloody hell - I've read about those.
    They are better - more poetic, more profound - than you can possibly imagine. Nearly indescribable. An Arctic Eden with a barely believable history of pain and rhapsody. Angels settled there for a reason. And utterly beautiful
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,247

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released three studies on Wednesday that federal officials said provided evidence that booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus vaccines would be needed by all Americans in the coming months.

    NYTimes



    Looks like US is heading towards booster shots this winter.

    This does rather imply they think Pfizer fades in efficacy. Surely
    Does it matter? We've bought 60m Pfizer doses as an insurance policy. We've got enough Pfizer doses to do all groups 1-10 with a booster shot and enough other vaccines to do groups 11, 12 and 13 as well.

    Additionally GSK has fixed the CureVac vaccine so the 2nd gen version will not only work against all of the variants (current and possibly a few predicted ones now that we have a common evolutionary path figured out) but will have extremely high efficacy.

    Finally, waning efficacy is based on the 3 week gap for Pfizer. Moderna notably doesn't see much drop off in efficacy at all in the same time period and incoming PHE numbers based on the 8-12 week gap for Pfizer will show whether our dosing strategy will deliver another victory against COVID. The JCVI has said the preliminary data for keeping the dosing gap at 8 weeks convinced them to hold onto it despite having no supply issues from around May onwards for Pfizer/Moderna.
    It matters psychologically, unfortunately. My Dad is really pretty elderly - with a younger but also very vulnerable wife - they were jabbed back in January and news like this will just prolong their reluctance to have any kind of normal life

    A lot of people are still horribly frightened, this won’t help
    It's quite possible that by the middle of September they'll already be being called up for their third doses.
    That's the plan, isn't it? I'm pretty sure that one of the medical posters here mentioned being actually told this was happening - not just the usual vague plans.
    As I posted a bit earlier, I have booked mine today. Certainly booked for flu and the appointment also has the words 'covid stage 2'.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    I have that too without an update, so I think it is a change on the website.

    @rcs1000
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,834
    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    Oh yeah, so it does. Another annoying Vanilla update. Maybe there’s a setting in the admin console to restrict non-admin users from starting discussions @rcs1000?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    I don't think it will make much difference, to be honest. I don't believe in inevitability, but I think the factors that will tip the balance one way or another will cause a political outcome, rather than the political outcome of a GE making much contribution to the shift in opinion. That's not suggesting an insight on Scotland, just that I think the end result there will come, messily or otherwise, whatever the GE, which will just affect how messy it is.
    Your most politely vacuous comment yet, and there is strong competition
    One cannot change one's nature. Perhaps if I'd said "I don't think the fucking GE result will change the direction of THE UNION, as a cabbie suggested to me the other day in Laos. Shitfuck." it would have more substance?

    I'm sorry if thinking the GE result is peripheral to the political direction of Sindy isn't exciting. I lack dramatic flair, we're not all flint knappers extraordinaires.
    I was gently teasing you in an otherwise boring thread

    Your politeness is generally commendable, and I see you as a bellwether on PB, ie if Kle4 takes an actual new position there is probably something worth looking at in the argument

    I just thought I’d insult you out of random malice. Hope that’s OK
    And calling him a castrated ram wasn’t random malice?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Mortimer said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    Presumably to win 300 seats without Scotland Labour need to be taking seats like, I don't know, Bournemouth West?
    Sticking Con 36 Lab 42 LD 12 into EC spits out Lab 305 LD 19. They might make that work. Bournemouth East flips but not West.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    I think the Labour Party would probably need at least 310 seats, and probably more like 315, to avoid needing the SNP.
    The really fun one would be the Tories on 300.

    Starmer would be better keeping the Tories in as a minority, than be utterly dependent on the SNP for every vote, and with a fresh election clearly coming quickly down the line.
    The Tories on life support until the plug is turned off would be good for Starmer.

    The risk is, a la Corbyn/May, that the Tories get a new leader that rejuvenates the party and finds a winning formula.

    I'm sceptical that trick can be repeated again though.
    Two reasons to agree with you.

    One is that a party pulling off two successful regenerations whilst remaining in power is stretching the elastic of democracy in ways that aren't healthy. It is always less satisfactory when a party decides to dump its leader and change direction, rather than letting the electorate at large do it. A lot of the Conservative party's miseries of the nineties and noughties were down to the fact that Mrs T wasn't allowed to be defeated properly in a General Election... it's nature's way, after all.

    The other is that the regenerations that work seem to need a significant change of style and substance. So Thatcher-to-Major and May-to-Johnson worked, but Blair-to-Brown and Cameron-to-May didn't. The only change that looks like being radical enough would be Johnson-to-Hunt, accompanied by the other Select Committee chairs who seem to have torn the PM countless new ones today. And that ain't gonna happen, because that's not where the Conservative Party is.

    But Sunak, Truss and the rest of them are fundamentally compromised by going along with Johnson's Premiership. And today has shown, if it needed showing, that B Johnson simply isn't up to the job of being Prime Minister. There's no shame in that; I couldn't do it either.

    But I'm not the one clogging up the system by squatting in a role I just can't do.
  • Mortimer said:

    Covid anecdote...

    A colleague in her twenties has been off work sick this week with you-know-what.

    Single jabbed, I think.

    And guess what - this is going to happen to most people in the coming years. A week off with a bad cold. Some people might have to go to hospital. Or worse.

    A bit like most respiratory viruses.
    I think what I saw in the chamber of the House of Commons today was 650 people desperately trying to come to terms with what they have been doing, what they are doing, and what options might now be open to them, given events.

    I don't think they have even started to grasp the reality of the situation. A situation that they, all of them, have brought about. They are completely at sea.

    I would just say our mp was in his constituency dealing with constituents issues and where most of today's mps in the HOC may have been better employed
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,834

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers: if you are accessing the site through a proxy server to hide your real IP address, and using a fake email address for registration, then I reserve the right to assume you are a troll and to ban you.

    I'm not naming names. Yet.

    I am Spartacus
    's fifth cousin twice removed down the matrilineal line of the Italian branch of the family?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,247
    Sandpit said:

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
    One gets the impression that their understanding of the word 'privacy' is somewhat different to the rest of us.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    My God, they really need to shut the fuck up
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited August 2021

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20


    "The Queen's 'recollections may vary' comment 'did not go unnoticed' by the couple"


    I'm sure it wasn't. It was about as pointed as a royal statement from the Queen gets. And fact is if sides disagree about core facts then satisfaction is impossible, since accepting the other side as the price of 'moving on' becomes too high.

    In all seriousness, what's the game here? Even if their concerns are fully justified and genuine getting friends to make miquetoast accusations that the Queen did not take 'ownership' as they would like is not exciting enough to get more than a day's attention, it doesn't put pressure on anyone, and if more is coming it won't be made more existing by this preamble, in which case just wait for the truly major claims (which will probably be after the Queen is dead).

    I get their audience for anti-royal stuff is largely younger people, republicans and americans, but this level of talk isn't juicy enough to be interesting, nor serious enough to be scandalous. So it doesn't expand the brand much, and if it is just genuine concern about sincere allegations, well, it won't be taken that way by the other side, so it's tactically unwise.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Sandpit said:

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
    Perhaps they're just American celebs participating in America's culture wars?
  • Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    And being called racist
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468

    rcs1000 said:

    I think the betting markets are wrong.

    My estimate would be 65-70% probability Conservative majority, 25-30% NOM.

    As high as a 10% chance of a Labour majority?
    Con 60%
    Hung 35%
    Lab 5%

    That's me right now, Philip.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,040

    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
    This is so stupid I wonder if it is black ops against the Sussexes. The Queen is 95 and a beloved global figure. What can they possibly gain from this?!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    Sandpit said:

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
    Of course they don't want privacy. How would they make any money?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    Britain fears US forces may pull out of Kabul international airport within days, putting it at risk of closure and raising concerns over the emergency airlift of thousands of people from Afghanistan.

    Whitehall and security sources said they could not guarantee how long the US would keep its contingent of 6,000 troops on the ground and cautioned that the UK could not continue the rescue without their presence. They also indicated Britain was not engaging with the Taliban directly over security or other issues after the militant group seized the Afghan capital.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/18/britain-fears-us-forces-may-pull-out-kabul-airport-within-days
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,834

    Sandpit said:

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
    One gets the impression that their understanding of the word 'privacy' is somewhat different to the rest of us.
    Indeed. They’re upset that the Firm have stopped talking to him, because a twisted version of everything they ever discuss appears in American tabloid 48 hours later.

    One imagines that one might be rather annoyed by that headline, and that one might be requesting her government to look at the line of succession…
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    Any estimates at all about how many might be beyond Kabul?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,891
    Something interesting

    I took the ONS 2020 numbers and used them as the population figures for age group vs vaccinations

    England, 1st vaccinations as of 17th August

    18 to 24 70.81%
    25 to 29 73.45%
    30 to 34 80.93%
    35 to 39 84.46%
    40 to 44 90.09%
    45 to 49 89.79%
    50 to 54 94.10%
    55 to 59 96.15%
    60 to 64 97.70%
    65 to 69 95.90%
    70 to 74 96.38%
    75 to 79 98.51%
    80 to 84 94.40%
    85 to 89 92.99%
    90 upwards 86.22%
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
    This is so stupid I wonder if it is black ops against the Sussexes. The Queen is 95 and a beloved global figure. What can they possibly gain from this?!
    Absolutely zero

    And haven't they fallen out with the Obamas

  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    I think the Labour Party would probably need at least 310 seats, and probably more like 315, to avoid needing the SNP.
    The really fun one would be the Tories on 300.

    Starmer would be better keeping the Tories in as a minority, than be utterly dependent on the SNP for every vote, and with a fresh election clearly coming quickly down the line.
    The Tories on life support until the plug is turned off would be good for Starmer.

    The risk is, a la Corbyn/May, that the Tories get a new leader that rejuvenates the party and finds a winning formula.

    I'm sceptical that trick can be repeated again though.
    Two reasons to agree with you.

    One is that a party pulling off two successful regenerations whilst remaining in power is stretching the elastic of democracy in ways that aren't healthy. It is always less satisfactory when a party decides to dump its leader and change direction, rather than letting the electorate at large do it. A lot of the Conservative party's miseries of the nineties and noughties were down to the fact that Mrs T wasn't allowed to be defeated properly in a General Election... it's nature's way, after all.

    The other is that the regenerations that work seem to need a significant change of style and substance. So Thatcher-to-Major and May-to-Johnson worked, but Blair-to-Brown and Cameron-to-May didn't. The only change that looks like being radical enough would be Johnson-to-Hunt, accompanied by the other Select Committee chairs who seem to have torn the PM countless new ones today. And that ain't gonna happen, because that's not where the Conservative Party is.

    But Sunak, Truss and the rest of them are fundamentally compromised by going along with Johnson's Premiership. And today has shown, if it needed showing, that B Johnson simply isn't up to the job of being Prime Minister. There's no shame in that; I couldn't do it either.

    But I'm not the one clogging up the system by squatting in a role I just can't do.
    I am curious how, setting aside any preconceptions you already had, today has shown any such thing?

    The simple reality is that after two decades of western failure in Afghanistan, no British PM, not even a PM Tugendhat, either could or would have stayed in Afghanistan post Biden's withdrawal. Its just not realistic.

    So yes its easy for people to snipe from the sidelines about the futility of the deaths of the past two decades but if there's any blame for "today" then most of it needs to be put at the feet of Blair and Bush who did a half-arsed job in Afghanistan two decades ago allowing the Taliban to retreat to sanctuary in Pakistan and regroup, then immediately turning to concentrate on Iraq.

    And I say that as someone who at the time, despite being a young and idealistic student, supported the Iraq War at the time. And I still think removing Saddam was the right thing to do, but giving up on eliminating the Taliban and allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to have safe harbour while turning attention almost solely to Saddam was a catastrophic clusterfuck we're paying the price of today.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
    Thresholds make a lot of sense, though which do and don't require them is slightly trickier to determine (or would be, if we had them more commonly) and work in many places. It'd be portrayed as a fix though.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    You come at the Queen, you best not miss:

    TELEGRAPH FRONT: Queen ‘did not take ownership of race allegations’ say Sussexes

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428096744928288780?s=20

    I think that counts as a miss. What the hell are they playing at, didn’t they say they wanted privacy?
    One gets the impression that their understanding of the word 'privacy' is somewhat different to the rest of us.
    Indeed. They’re upset that the Firm have stopped talking to him, because a twisted version of everything they ever discuss appears in American tabloid 48 hours later.

    One imagines that one might be rather annoyed by that headline, and that one might be requesting her government to look at the line of succession…
    As long as Charles, William, and the kids don't all get on the same plane it's no problem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited August 2021

    Something interesting

    I took the ONS 2020 numbers and used them as the population figures for age group vs vaccinations

    England, 1st vaccinations as of 17th August

    18 to 24 70.81%
    25 to 29 73.45%
    30 to 34 80.93%
    35 to 39 84.46%
    40 to 44 90.09%
    45 to 49 89.79%
    50 to 54 94.10%
    55 to 59 96.15%
    60 to 64 97.70%
    65 to 69 95.90%
    70 to 74 96.38%
    75 to 79 98.51%
    80 to 84 94.40%
    85 to 89 92.99%
    90 upwards 86.22%

    Any particular reason 90+ would be so low?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    I think the Labour Party would probably need at least 310 seats, and probably more like 315, to avoid needing the SNP.
    The really fun one would be the Tories on 300.

    Starmer would be better keeping the Tories in as a minority, than be utterly dependent on the SNP for every vote, and with a fresh election clearly coming quickly down the line.
    Maybe. But if you can be PM you take it, I think.
  • HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
    Completely disagreed. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and you don't get to complain. Lethargy and not voting is not a vote to maintain the status quo, its simply indifference so they don't get counted for either side.

    If a simple majority wants us back in the EU, they have the right to do that.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    I think they'll probably be just fine, but they won't be coming back over here again (except, possibly, for funerals.)

    And I think they'll be OK with that. All the bridges have already been well and truly burned.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,891
    kle4 said:

    Something interesting

    I took the ONS 2020 numbers and used them as the population figures for age group vs vaccinations

    England, 1st vaccinations as of 17th August

    18 to 24 70.81%
    25 to 29 73.45%
    30 to 34 80.93%
    35 to 39 84.46%
    40 to 44 90.09%
    45 to 49 89.79%
    50 to 54 94.10%
    55 to 59 96.15%
    60 to 64 97.70%
    65 to 69 95.90%
    70 to 74 96.38%
    75 to 79 98.51%
    80 to 84 94.40%
    85 to 89 92.99%
    90 upwards 86.22%

    AnNy particular reason 90+ would be so low?
    That was seen in past data - probably medical/frailty

    The interesting part is how high it is much further down the age ranges vs the other population estimates.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    I think they'll probably be just fine, but they won't be coming back over here again (except, possibly, for funerals.)

    And I think they'll be OK with that. All the bridges have already been well and truly burned.
    I bet she dumps him. He’s not the brightest, the royal lustre wears off, she’s smart and ruthless…
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468

    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
    Completely disagreed. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and you don't get to complain. Lethargy and not voting is not a vote to maintain the status quo, its simply indifference so they don't get counted for either side.

    If a simple majority wants us back in the EU, they have the right to do that.
    You can't stop people complaining, I don't think.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    SKY report on the HoC today:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ooZAVRECw
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
    Neither have dementia.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    I think they'll probably be just fine, but they won't be coming back over here again (except, possibly, for funerals.)

    And I think they'll be OK with that. All the bridges have already been well and truly burned.
    Hopefully he'll be happier. But with such anger at the royal institution his family are (in appearence) content within, and without the presence of his grandmother at some stage (remember how she was reportedly having to settle idiotic petty disputes about who would wear what at her husband's funeral) the stage is set for some truly bitter scenes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,790
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    He won't they are both as bad as each other and deserve each other.

    They are a 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor, permanently in exile abroad now, the Queen Mother washed her hands of them and they stayed in Paris and I expect the royal family will do the same with the Sussexes.
    '
    They will be marooned in California, Woke central, forever which suits her fine, him rather less so I expect but tough he made his bed and must lie in it
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    I think they'll probably be just fine, but they won't be coming back over here again (except, possibly, for funerals.)

    And I think they'll be OK with that. All the bridges have already been well and truly burned.
    I dunno. Once she’s squeezed out every last drop of royal juice, drop him she shall. Quite a sad figure he’d cut then.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,090

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
    This is so stupid I wonder if it is black ops against the Sussexes. The Queen is 95 and a beloved global figure. What can they possibly gain from this?!
    Absolutely zero

    And haven't they fallen out with the Obamas

    Everything about them is idiotic and makes no sense:

    - Hates the media and yet courts the media.

    - Doesn't want to be in the spotlight, signs a $100m plus deal with Netflix.

    - Wants to give up his royal family status and the pressure of being in this institution. Moans when he loses his titles and honours and his funding from said institution.

    Utter Hypocrisy.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,040

    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
    Completely disagreed. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and you don't get to complain. Lethargy and not voting is not a vote to maintain the status quo, its simply indifference so they don't get counted for either side.

    If a simple majority wants us back in the EU, they have the right to do that.
    Sindy and the EU referendum have set the precedent now so I suspect your preferred approach will be maintained (albeit governments may well avoid referenda like the Plague for the foreseeable).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    jonny83 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
    This is so stupid I wonder if it is black ops against the Sussexes. The Queen is 95 and a beloved global figure. What can they possibly gain from this?!
    Absolutely zero

    And haven't they fallen out with the Obamas

    Everything about them is idiotic and makes no sense:

    - Hates the media and yet courts the media.

    - Doesn't want to be in the spotlight, signs a $100m plus deal with Netflix.

    - Wants to give up his royal family status and the pressure of being in this institution. Moans when he loses his titles and honours and his funding from said institution.

    Utter Hypocrisy.
    Playing it for team distracting attention from the pervert uncle
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2021
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer UK alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    HYUFD's view on the union distilled:

    Tory majority = no IndyRef = good for union.
    No Tory majority = no Tory PM = good for union.
    Fable of the wind and the Sun, innit?

    The simple fact of a non-Conservative government will do quite a bit to cement the Union in place for a few more decades. That's before we get devoMax with a thistle on top. (It's really obvious how that pas-de-deux plays out. There will be nothing before the election. Afterwards, the SNP will have to do whatever's needed to kick the Conservatives out and Labour will have to offer something in exchange, but not much.) In the event of a Starmer minority government in 2024 and a referendum pencilled in for about 2028 (a short generation, but... let's just say I've been a secondary school teacher and I know of what I speak) would be a win for "No" at a canter. To the extent that I can see the SNP looking for reasons not to hold it.

    An ongoing Conservative hegemony, on the other hand, keeps Scotland in the Union by refusing a referendum. That will work as long as the balance of Scottish opinion is in the 45/55 range either way. But it accelerates the time when Scotland breaks decisively for independence. Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if Westminster refuses a referendum. I don't know where that point is, but a wildcat referendum where a majority of the electorate (not just voters) voted for independence would be blooming hard to ignore.
    A majority of the electorate is an insanely high threshold to cross though. It would require 62.5% of the vote at an 80% turnout. A wildcat referendum would suppress turnout so that would be even harder to achieve (afterall if you've settled for that ambition then it doesn't matter if 100 No votes are suppressed for every Yes vote, since only Yes votes matter).
    No question- it's an very high threshold. In 2014, the referendum was roughly 38% Yes, 50% No, 12% did not vote. It's a lot of votes to shift. And the only way it happens is a decade or so of hyper-unionist pulling (and noises about pulling) powers back to Westminster as the sole true focus of democracy.
    I can't help thinking that any major constitutional change being decided by a referendum should require an abosulte majority if the electorate. If a change is that important, and that popular, why would getting more than half of the electorate to vote for it be a problem?

    Any future vote to rejoin the EU would be a good example of a measure that should require an absolute majority in order to pass.
    Completely disagreed. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and you don't get to complain. Lethargy and not voting is not a vote to maintain the status quo, its simply indifference so they don't get counted for either side.

    If a simple majority wants us back in the EU, they have the right to do that.
    You can't stop people complaining, I don't think.
    Their complaints are not counted in the vote tallies though. They've silenced themselves, they've neutered their own opinion, by making the decision not to bother to vote.

    Not voting is neither progressive nor reactionary, its neither for change nor the status quo, its neither left nor right, its neither authoritarian nor liberal. Its simply nothing.

    Its depriving yourself of the right and obligation to do your civil duty and have your say. You have no voice, no say, nothing.

    People who try to include non-voters on "their" side are dishonourable at best.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
    Neither have dementia.
    Well then they both have that THING when previously smart people get really old and forget words and facts all the time and mumble incoherently and speak in massively jumbled sentences that are often entirely contradictory and certainly confusing

    Is that not medically “dementia”? I am not a gerontologist
  • YokesYokes Posts: 748
    Just so happens senators have been told that the US is looking at local airlift to get their citizens outside of the city to Kabul Airport. Whether this wonk speak for 'we thought about it but it wasnt going to work but its the thought that counts' or a serious idea in the works remains to be seen. Seems remarkable they could do that but not create collection zones in Kabul for same.

    It is, however, likely that the US will not make an effort to get the eligible Afghans out because the Taliban are holding them to ransom.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,040
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
    Neither have dementia.
    Well then they both have that THING when previously smart people get really old and forget words and facts all the time and mumble incoherently and speak in massively jumbled sentences that are often entirely contradictory and certainly confusing

    Is that not medically “dementia”? I am not a gerontologist
    I think we all get a bit of that as we get older, some more than others.

    PS I'm not conviced that Trump was ever smart.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    Daily Mail front page:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428106209375277064?s=20

    @DominicRaab was ‘too busy’ on holiday to help brave translators
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    edited August 2021
    Mortimer said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    Presumably to win 300 seats without Scotland Labour need to be taking seats like, I don't know, Bournemouth West?
    I haven’t done the sums, but that looks about right. Bournemouth West has over 10,000 majority. It’s those kinds of seats Labour *must* win if the SNP doesn’t collapse totally. Just can’t see it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,040

    Daily Mail front page:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428106209375277064?s=20

    @DominicRaab was ‘too busy’ on holiday to help brave translators

    Ouch!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    EXCLUSIVE: Pressed on whether the U.S.'s exit from Afghanistan could have been handled better, Pres. Biden tells @GStephanopoulos, "The idea that somehow, there's a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing—I don't know how that happens."

    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1428098017496682503?s=20
  • Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
    Neither have dementia.
    Well then they both have that THING when previously smart people get really old and forget words and facts all the time and mumble incoherently and speak in massively jumbled sentences that are often entirely contradictory and certainly confusing

    Is that not medically “dementia”? I am not a gerontologist
    Re your first sentence my wife and I recognise most of it !!!!!!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 15,232

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    I have that too on my android. Different people, different type of phone, yet the same visuals. It's hard to keep up.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    Hmmm: this'll be why we got Vanilla spam. Anyone can now start a new thread.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think the betting markets are wrong.

    My estimate would be 65-70% probability Conservative majority, 25-30% NOM.

    As high as a 10% chance of a Labour majority?
    Effectively that would be saying that there is a 10% chance of SNP collapse before the next UK GE.
    Perhaps the PB Enders of SNP Honeymoons can finally break their duck.
    Their record is extraordinarily poor.

    End of SNP Honeymoon* is as much a PB meme as “Scottish Tory Surge” used to be.

    (*most honeymoons do not last 14 years)
    And "Victorious-to-be New Slab Leader".
    An old favourite:

    Jim Murphy: I'm Astonished By How Easy It's Been To Outwit The SNP

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/its-been-easy-its-been-to-outdo-the-snp
  • Roger said:

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
    Alternatively what was a 34 week pregnant woman doing in a warzone where this could quite conceivably happen? The writing has been on the wall for a while.

    Neither the army, not the government are crap. They're doing the best in a bad situation, but frankly anyone who was there should have known the score and been paid accordingly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    EXCLUSIVE: Pressed on whether the U.S.'s exit from Afghanistan could have been handled better, Pres. Biden tells @GStephanopoulos, "The idea that somehow, there's a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing—I don't know how that happens."

    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1428098017496682503?s=20

    That's not an answer to the question. There's quite a range between 'no chaos' and this. Indeed, it could even have been worse.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    Oh yeah, so it does. Another annoying Vanilla update. Maybe there’s a setting in the admin console to restrict non-admin users from starting discussions @rcs1000?
    Found the Setting in Vanilla. Disabled it.

    Could you please check it worked.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,121
    rcs1000 said:

    PBers: if you are accessing the site through a proxy server to hide your real IP address, and using a fake email address for registration, then I reserve the right to assume you are a troll and to ban you.

    I'm not naming names. Yet.

    He’ll only come back with another fake ID

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    Oh yeah, so it does. Another annoying Vanilla update. Maybe there’s a setting in the admin console to restrict non-admin users from starting discussions @rcs1000?
    Found the Setting in Vanilla. Disabled it.

    Could you please check it worked.
    It’s gone
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,834
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    On my iPhone I now have a blue circle with a white plus sign in the bottom right hand corner of PB. When I press it, I’m asked if I want to start a new discussion.

    I guess it’s because of a software update on my phone. Twitter has different typeface too

    Oh yeah, so it does. Another annoying Vanilla update. Maybe there’s a setting in the admin console to restrict non-admin users from starting discussions @rcs1000?
    Found the Setting in Vanilla. Disabled it.

    Could you please check it worked.
    Yep, you got it!
  • Yokes said:

    Just so happens senators have been told that the US is looking at local airlift to get their citizens outside of the city to Kabul Airport. Whether this wonk speak for 'we thought about it but it wasnt going to work but its the thought that counts' or a serious idea in the works remains to be seen. Seems remarkable they could do that but not create collection zones in Kabul for same.

    It is, however, likely that the US will not make an effort to get the eligible Afghans out because the Taliban are holding them to ransom.

    Looks like Jalalabad and Khost seeing anti-Taliban protests.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Joe Biden has said he could not see a way to withdraw from Afghanistan without “chaos ensuing”.

    In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and the president’s first since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw troops when he did.

    Asked if the exit could have been handled better in any way, the president said:

    "No, I don’t think it could have been handled in a way that, we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look – but the idea that somehow, there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/18/afghanistan-live-news-updates-taliban-kabul-airport-deaths-afghan-crisis

    If you listen to Biden’s syntax, it is invariably garbled like this. He has dementia. Uncannily like Trump
    Neither have dementia.
    Well then they both have that THING when previously smart people get really old and forget words and facts all the time and mumble incoherently and speak in massively jumbled sentences that are often entirely contradictory and certainly confusing

    Is that not medically “dementia”? I am not a gerontologist
    I think we all get a bit of that as we get older, some more than others.
    If it’s not dementia what is it? Genuine question. Biden has it quite badly now

    Just look at that quote above. It is a man desperately fumbling for words and syntax

    Compare this with a similar interview by the same interviewer - Stephanapoulos - with, say, Obama. Obama is lucid, clear, coherent. Highly eloquent. Sigh.

    https://youtu.be/vGpjFh5Izkc

    We’ve just gotten used to bumbling US presidents with really ageing brains. Not good
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,790
    edited August 2021

    Mortimer said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    Presumably to win 300 seats without Scotland Labour need to be taking seats like, I don't know, Bournemouth West?
    I haven’t done the sums, but that looks about right. Bournemouth West has over 10,000 majority. It’s those kinds of seats Labour *must* win if the SNP doesn’t collapse totally. Just can’t see it.
    Notionally for an outright majority Labour needs to gain 124 seats to get to 326.

    In reality as 20 of those target seats are SNP without Scottish gains it would need to win 20 Tory seats more.

    That would mean taking seats like Basingstoke, Chelsea and Fulham, Rochford and Southend East and Hexham as well as Bournemouth West

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    Roger said:

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
    This @penfarthing?

    Pen Farthing, who served in Helmand, has rehomed more than 1,700 animals via his charity in the Afghan capital. He has vowed not to leave until he has evacuated his employees and the cats and dogs his charity has rescued

    https://inews.co.uk/news/real-life/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-pen-farthing-dogs-cats-animals-charity-evacuation-nowzad-1154738

    I'm sure an Animal Shelter is a noble cause - but I'm not clear what the responsibility of the UK government is to evacuate its Afghan employees and the animals.

    The animals the former sergeant has under his care in his shelter in Kabul include:

    140 dogs
    60 cats
    12 donkeys
    2 horses
    1 goat
    1 cow
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    kle4 said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    I don't think it will make much difference, to be honest. I don't believe in inevitability, but I think the factors that will tip the balance one way or another will cause a political outcome, rather than the political outcome of a GE making much contribution to the shift in opinion. That's not suggesting an insight on Scotland, just that I think the end result there will come, messily or otherwise, whatever the GE, which will just affect how messy it is.
    Me neither.

    There are deep changes in the tectonic plates of Scottish society. That is what will ultimately determine the fate of the country, not a flaccid, fleeting contest in a neighbouring country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    I don't think it will make much difference, to be honest. I don't believe in inevitability, but I think the factors that will tip the balance one way or another will cause a political outcome, rather than the political outcome of a GE making much contribution to the shift in opinion. That's not suggesting an insight on Scotland, just that I think the end result there will come, messily or otherwise, whatever the GE, which will just affect how messy it is.
    Me neither.

    There are deep changes in the tectonic plates of Scottish society. That is what will ultimately determine the fate of the country, not a flaccid, fleeting contest in a neighbouring country.
    Hey, that contest will be plenty turgid.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Harry is going to end up hated, bitter - and divorced

    Most probably - attacking the Queen is just idiotic
    This is so stupid I wonder if it is black ops against the Sussexes. The Queen is 95 and a beloved global figure. What can they possibly gain from this?!
    Absolutely zero

    And haven't they fallen out with the Obamas

    They asked the Obamas to choose between them and the future head of state of the Uk, Canada, Australia, etc etc, & his wife

    The Obamas chose
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,838
    Mortimer said:

    Covid anecdote...

    A colleague in her twenties has been off work sick this week with you-know-what.

    Single jabbed, I think.

    And guess what - this is going to happen to most people in the coming years. A week off with a bad cold. Some people might have to go to hospital. Or worse.

    A bit like most respiratory viruses.
    Not sure the relatives of the 111 people who died from it yesterday would agree. We're clearly over the worst, and entitled to take pleasure from increasing normality, but it's too early to trivialise it.
  • This thread is asleep at the wheel

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    rcs1000 said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    Ho ho.

    There is a website called Electoral Calculus. Run by a nice mathematician/finance chap called Martin Baxter. Have a wee look around there. Take your time. Fiddle about with his various calculators. Then have a good, long, hard, cold look at the words you just typed.
    I think the Labour Party would probably need at least 310 seats, and probably more like 315, to avoid needing the SNP.
    What is the winning line seat then? Something like Dover? Con Maj 12,278
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,891
    Roger said:

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
    At a random guess -

    - You can't open the gates at the airport to let individual people through, given the scenes we have seen. Hence they are staying shut.
    - If the various militaries are getting to people, it will be away from the chaos at the airport. They may well not be taking them to the airport when they find them, either.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
    His ask - as he well knows as a former Marine - is ridiculous

    If you are defending an entry point it is hideously dangerous to everyone to sally forward just to rescue two individuals in a crowd. You don’t do it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    HYUFD said:

    NOM = end of Union?

    The reverse. NOM likely means PM Starmer, indyref2 + devomax and a narrow No win and securing of Scotland's position in the Union for a genuine generation more.

    Also it likely means closer alignment to the SM and CU for GB removing the Irish Sea border also cementing GB closer to NI.

    NOM is thus likely bad for the Tories as they lose office, even the DUP may prefer Starmer for the reasons in my second sentence however it would be good for the Union
    Ah yes, devomax, that old chestnut. Been tumbleweed status on that one for years now. You seem to be the last remaining fan. Oh, and Farquharson, who’s been banging on about it his entire career.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,586
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    [snipped]

    On a different theme, I wasn't keeping track today: did you get to the Pnyx?
    Yes, and it was quite absorbing, tho not quite as epiphanic as the Athenian Agora. But that’s a high bar

    Athens is just stuffed with wonderful things to see. I’ve been here nine days (with a couple left) and I could do another week easily and not get bored

    Maybe the Pnyx didn’t totally wow me because I was wholly wowed earlier by lunch at the Acropolis Museum. It’s an utterly fantastic restaurant (seriously world class food) AND you get to eat it (and drink great Greek wine) with a majestic view of the Parthenon. That’s also a high bar

    I got sloshed and ate split pea with salami and squid and radish and weirdness and it was brilliant and I toasted the goddess Athena

    I don’t know if you missed our earlier discussion of modern Greek food (at least in Athens) but it is genuinely first rate. You eat better in Athens, on average, than Paris, very easily. Possibly better than London or Madrid. AND it is markedly cheaper
    Well! That's something to add to the bucket list, on which the Wasa, the Aland Islands, and the Finnish Tank Museum are already inscribed. And a ride on the Viking ships at Roskilde.

    On which: I have no idea if Hellenic Navy Ship Olympias the trieres/trireme is even accessible to the public. Probably not. And it won't be rowing around. Not easy to drum up so many rowers at once, never mind socially distanced. Thouigh I did meet one on the train once.
    “The Wasa”? Do you mean the Vasa? (Wasa for me is a brand of crisp bread. Very good, but hardly bucket list material.)

    The Vasa museum is my favourite museum, and easily the highlight of any Stockholm trip. I’m a bit addicted to it. Bloody expensive, but I get free entrance, so usually go when I’m in town.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    dixiedean said:

    NOM, doesn't necessarily mean Labour would have to do a deal with the SNP (presuming the Tories definitely couldn't form a government if they lack a majority). If Labour win 300+ seats they could probably cobble up enough support from the Lib Dems, SDLP and Lucas to get a thin majority if Sinn Fein don't bother to show up. Also if Starmer were willing to give the DUP their pork, 300 would definitely be enough.

    300 seats is light years away without Scotland. The single most important factor is the 80 seat majority.
    That won't be overturned in one go without something remarkably dramatic.
    Such a change did occur in 1950 - 1964 - 1970 - 2005 - and 2010.
  • Roger said:

    Lots of credible sources suggesting British 2 PARA (Parachute Regiment) is rescuing our people from outside airport, in downtown Kabul, whilst US remain inside perimeter, leading to tensions. If so, not surprised that CO is doing everything possible to achieve the mission

    https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1428088590446342146?s=20

    and from further down the page..........

    @PenFarthing

    My wife is at the North gate of Kabul airport being crushed in the stampede to get with my 34 week pregnant country manager. The UK military will not come out to rescue them. @BorisJohnson
    @DominicRaab
    anything happens I will hold you personally responsible @BBCBreaking
    @SkyNews

    links like Carlotta's to show how wonderful our military are at a time like this seems singularly inappropriate as 'Pen Farthing' tweet points out and there are plenty similar. This jingoism is getting overdone or is the point that our government is complete crap so don't blame the army?
    At a random guess -

    - You can't open the gates at the airport to let individual people through, given the scenes we have seen. Hence they are staying shut.
    - If the various militaries are getting to people, it will be away from the chaos at the airport. They may well not be taking them to the airport when they find them, either.
    Almost like the militaries have a clue what they're doing.
This discussion has been closed.