Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
Utterly offtopic but from my visit to the Lakes yesterday ( a damp Thursday in August)
1) I've never seen it so full 2) a fair number of pubs were closed due to pings 3) a lot of places are still short staffed but have stopped recruiting because the people don't exist (and once September arrives it's going to be easier to just close a few rooms off).
People always exist at the right rate of pay. North sea oil rigs don't have a population bobbing up and down on a rowing boat waiting to be hired once the rig exists, but the pay attracts the people from all over the world. Nor was there a huge unemployed population in walking distance from Shoe Lane hoping for a financial services outfit called Goldman Sachs to turn up.
Exactly. It's like when people ponder how conducive to poppy growing Afghan's climate and terroir is. Overlooking the fact that it is more the governance that is the deciding factor.
As for your point it would mean inflationary pressures build which, according to many on here, is a good thing but I'm not so sure
Opium poppies are notably easy to grow and even easier to harvest. A perfect crop. So it’s much more about the legal situation/lawlessness of any locale
They grow particularly well in East Anglia and the Fens, and in the 16th-18th centuries there was a big fenland tradition of ‘poppy tea’ - to take away the agues and tediums of their watery lifestyle
They pop up naturally all over the place. They line the edges of fields across Normandy. Looking out my window in Bucks now I can see them around the edge of a communal green space. Any plant that grows so easily naturally must be quite easy to do so intentionally.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is, it is called The Law. Scots decided in 2014 to allow Westminster to retain those powers. So it is absolutely "in the gift" of Boris Johnson until he is removed from office, and then it will be in the gift of whomever is PM of UK.
Rule of law is important. Unless you are a a member of the SNP or the Taliban it seems.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson.
Lawyers may disagree of course (yes some will argue the other way too), but morally I don't see how a request from the Scottish Parliament could be rejected, though there's little downside from Boris's perspective since he's playing for time.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
Plans for a huge post-Brexit lorry park at Guston on the outskirts of Dover have been radically scaled back. The site will have just 96 parking spaces for trucks, rather than 1,200.
Who presumably may have become infected and also need to be culled?
Whoever thought that was a good idea
Did they stop watching Spartacus twenty minutes before the end?
This course of action has always been possible* - have any of his supporters actually seriously suggested it though. Or is the Telegraph simply stating that this is a possibility.
* I expect he'll be marked/have some distinguishing feature anyway.
One thing about paywall journalism, the twitter headline doesn't allow examination of the story behind.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
I am fairly relaxed about most things, but I am going to be passing on a number of tickets for gigs that I have over the coming months. In the mosh pit with 1000s of other people in hot sweaty environment for 4-5hrs doesn't seem like a particular sensible idea.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson.
Lawyers may disagree of course (yes some will argue the other way too), but morally I don't see how a request from the Scottish Parliament could be rejected, though there's little downside from Boris's perspective since he's playing for time.
It would be placed before the HOC and it would be voted down as the commons is today
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
Well, no one is stopping you from doing what you think is necessary to not catch COVID.
There will soon be a name for the long term psychological damage from over-caution resulting from an irrational fear of Covid.
My dad and stepmother have it. The Cornish covid calamity will not be helping
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
Ms Cyclefree. I apologise for my somewhat clumsy knee jerk response to your comment last night. I should not have made it personal in any way however I am finding myself more and more annoyed in life how people will criticise others who are in incredibly difficult roles doing what they are doing with a lot more insight into the situation than the public (and this is true in private life too) and cast aspersions on their character or ability.
It was a tired reaction which hadn’t been thought through fully and I was trying to defend someone who is not a moron but who said something with some merit that could have been phrased differently.
Whilst I am fed up with everyone being an “expert” on everything these days and get angry with politicians and others saying “you shouldn’t have done/said that” when they would likely have had to do the same I should not have made the point I made and how I made it and especially in light of your own history which inevitably will give you reason to be more agitated to certain events. So again I apologise for the personal and also for my own inarticulate comment - I must be a budding Nick Carter myself....
That is quite all right and very decent of you. Thank you. I appreciate that I don't have all the facts and know all too well how difficult many judgment calls are. I have been a bit upset by these events, more so than I imagined. It has felt to me for a while that there is an all too easy brushing aside of women's concerns (and as one of the very few women on here I do feel the need to put forward a perspective which does not otherwise get much airing) and a certain naivety and willingness to believe that things will not be so bad as all that. I feel very pessimistic about events and the future and, frankly, angry.
I too have been a bit OTT in recent comments. So I need to dial it back a bit. I don't really think all men are bastards and appreciate the debate on here.
Time to spend a bit more time in the garden and less time fretting about stuff I can do nothing about.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
It's quite difficult to actually go out and deliberately catch a virus in the wild though I think ? Particularly if you're vaccinated, have a healthy immune system, are otherwise healthy and are not particularly old (All three apply to @Rochdalepioneers )
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson.
Lawyers may disagree of course (yes some will argue the other way too), but morally I don't see how a request from the Scottish Parliament could be rejected, though there's little downside from Boris's perspective since he's playing for time.
There are two ways of looking at the playing for time interpretation: hard headed player basing his actions on cool, long sighted analysis, or mendacious lightweight unable to distinguish between the public interest and his own benefit, lurching from crisis to crisis. Chacun à son goût.
Utterly offtopic but from my visit to the Lakes yesterday ( a damp Thursday in August)
1) I've never seen it so full 2) a fair number of pubs were closed due to pings 3) a lot of places are still short staffed but have stopped recruiting because the people don't exist (and once September arrives it's going to be easier to just close a few rooms off).
People always exist at the right rate of pay. North sea oil rigs don't have a population bobbing up and down on a rowing boat waiting to be hired once the rig exists, but the pay attracts the people from all over the world. Nor was there a huge unemployed population in walking distance from Shoe Lane hoping for a financial services outfit called Goldman Sachs to turn up.
Exactly. It's like when people ponder how conducive to poppy growing Afghan's climate and terroir is. Overlooking the fact that it is more the governance that is the deciding factor.
As for your point it would mean inflationary pressures build which, according to many on here, is a good thing but I'm not so sure
Opium poppies are notably easy to grow and even easier to harvest. A perfect crop. So it’s much more about the legal situation/lawlessness of any locale
They grow particularly well in East Anglia and the Fens, and in the 16th-18th centuries there was a big fenland tradition of ‘poppy tea’ - to take away the agues and tediums of their watery lifestyle
I have areas where I haven’t cut the grass and loads of opium poppies have grown up. They even found their way onto my driveway. They are quite pretty.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
Unless there is a Section 30 agreement there won't be a properly constituted referendum. Scot Parl could run an advisory one, of course, but it would be boycotted by Unionists and refused recognition by everyone with the possible exception of N Korea. Nicola will not go down that line as she isn't a total bampot, unlike some of her supporters.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
An interesting split, I assumed SLDs would be lower. So while not everyone who backs Indy parties backs Indy, and not everyone who backs Unionist parties backs the Union, it essentially balances out so we can act as though the SNP+Green figure exactly tallies with INdy support, and the same for the unionist figure.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
You make a very good point, though it wouldn't even need to be Scots living in Scotland. It could be anyone in the UK. The devolved Scottish government does not have the power to call a referendum or administer it. I imagine an injunction would prevent any moves to implement it. I should think Nicola knows this. She will probably have her vote in the Scottish Parliament and then say that the judges are the "enemy of the people", or some kind of divisive nationalist bullshit.
This has been going over and over in my mind for days. Just think of all the attention in the 80s over Terry Waite, John McCarthy and Brian Keenan. Wikipedia tells me there were 104 Western hostages in Lebanon in total.
And here we are with perhaps 3k Brits, 15k Americans and an unknown number of others from other Western countries, their lives in the hands of a regime far more barbaric and unpredictable than Hezbollah.
Yokel tells that some security firms are advising clients to stay put for now. Stay put for what exactly? Personally I’d take my chances now than after 31 Aug when all bets are off to Taliban behaviour.
One gets the feeling that the media are under direction not to report just how dire this situation really is. The US system is different of course but I reckon the chances of the British government falling over this are not inconsiderable, especially if it’s true that Macron and Merkel largely got their people out ahead of time.
Increasingly, I see a Trump 2nd presidency looming.
Very depressing.
Hope I am wrong.
Too early to say and a lot of things could happen but I do think a GOP majority in both Houses is looking more nailed on for 2022 (Adam Laxalt announcing his Senate run in Nevada is a plus for the GOP and I think Sununu will run in NH). What that could mean is impeachment hearings against Biden for the way he handled the Afghanistan exit.
I can see Biden turning out to be right about Afghanistan but blamed by voters for leaving in such a mess and not recovering.
Biden might be able to avoid another terrorist attack on US soil.
However he will still have allowed the Taliban to return to Afghanistan on his watch
They never left it.
HY's ignorance is breathtaking.
The US and UK troops were mostly holed up in fortified compounds, with limited interaction with locals particularly in more remote and dangerous regions. And frequently fended off Taliban attacks - from fighters who weren't on day trips from abroad, or from IEDs planted by Afghans.
The ignorance is yours.
In 2017 only tiny patches of Afghanistan were in Taliban control, just 13 districts out of 421 and no major cities.
Absolutely. The Trump Doha deal has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If America had reelected Trump then the even faster withdrawal that he and the GOP have been demanding of Biden would have gone off without a hitch and the Taliban being handed back control would have no control.
I have said Romney, who opposed the withdrawal, would be a better President than both Trump and Biden, as indeed would Hillary Clinton who was also wary about withdrawal.
As it is though 58% of Republicans now oppose the Afghanistan withdrawal so the GOP is becoming more interventionist again at last....
I think that seriously misinterprets the poll. What it means is they think Biden was wrong, no more than that - I doubt more than a fraction of them are more interventionist / inclined to go back in again.
An even higher 62% of Republicans say the withdrawal would have been wrong if it leads to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations establishing operations in Afghanistan again.
By contrast 44% of Democrats say the withdrawal would still have been right even in those circumstances to 36% who say it would have been wrong.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
Indeed, 😀.
So, folks, what is our best strategy ?
I think the general approach is to try and live as normally as possible, but taking sensible precautions like wearing an FFP3 mask in high traffic areas and depending on your risk tolerance avoiding very high risk environments i.e. massive crowded indoor environments.
You are still going to get exposed at some point, but hopefully a smaller dosage of it.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
So a Union + SPD + Green coalition on 61% combined or a Union + SPD + FDP coalition on 57% combined still looks most likely
What has anything plus AfD got to do with anything? There is zero percent chance of the AfD being in any kind of coalition or vague understanding with any other party under any imaginable circumstances whatsoever after this election.
You also seem to have misread the opinion poll. 8% are "Sonstige", which are votes for parties that are extremely unlikely to get to the 5% threshold. So SPD+Green+Linke for example would have effectively 45 out of 92, ie 49% of members of parliament. (the HYUFD fantasy nonsense of Union+FDP+AfD would actually have a majority if the above poll was correct, FWIW, which is nothing)
Also, not sure why you think the options you give are more likely than Union+Green+FDP, or SPD+Green+FDP.
Other opinion polls are available. The the last 2 Kantars would give a small majority to SPD+Green+Linke, so there could be lots of options https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
An interesting split, I assumed SLDs would be lower. So while not everyone who backs Indy parties backs Indy, and not everyone who backs Unionist parties backs the Union, it essentially balances out so we can act as though the SNP+Green figure exactly tallies with INdy support, and the same for the unionist figure.
Pretty much. I was mildly surprised at the SLD figure too, though it is from a pretty small base!
Former Sheffield Hallam MP Jared O'Mara has been charged with seven counts of fraud. South Yorkshire Police said the charges related to a number of alleged fraudulent expenses claims.
Mr O'Mara, 39, is charged alongside former aide Gareth Arnold, who faces six counts of fraud, and a third man, John Woodliff, who faces a single charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act. They will appear before magistrates in Sheffield on 24 September.
The offences are said to have occurred between October 2018 and February 2020. The force said the charges brought against Mr O'Mara, of Walker Close, Sheffield, related to expenses claims submitted to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
"The charge relates to an allegation he made fraudulent invoices to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority jointly with Gareth Arnold, who is also charged with six counts of the same offence."
What a miserable specimen he was all round. Really reflects badly on Labour's processes for selecting candidates.
Did O'Mara ever speak in the Commons when he was an MP? One thing he did do was change the dress rules in the chamber. Apparently he had a health condition that made it difficult to wear a tie and exception for all MPs were agreed by Bercow.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
You make a very good point, though it wouldn't even need to be Scots living in Scotland. It could be anyone in the UK. The devolved Scottish government does not have the power to call a referendum or administer it. I imagine an injunction would prevent any moves to implement it. I should think Nicola knows this. She will probably have her vote in the Scottish Parliament and then say that the judges are the "enemy of the people", or some kind of divisive nationalist bullshit.
If Sturgeon holds an illegal referendum after a court ruling against her in contempt of court Boris via the courts can then order her arrest of course.
Just as Rajoy did with Nationalist leaders who ignored the courts in Catalonia
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
You make a very good point, though it wouldn't even need to be Scots living in Scotland. It could be anyone in the UK. The devolved Scottish government does not have the power to call a referendum or administer it. I imagine an injunction would prevent any moves to implement it. I should think Nicola knows this. She will probably have her vote in the Scottish Parliament and then say that the judges are the "enemy of the people", or some kind of divisive nationalist bullshit.
If Sturgeon holds an illegal referendum after a court ruling against her in contempt of court Boris via the courts can then order her arrest of course.
Just as Rajoy did with Nationalist leaders who ignored the courts in Catalonia
Again this is a country with the rule of law not a fascist dictatorship of your imagination.
Boris doesn't control the courts - and quite right too!
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
Even if the courts ruled it could go ahead the UK government could and would ignore the result unless near 100% turnout and a big Yes majority
Utterly offtopic but from my visit to the Lakes yesterday ( a damp Thursday in August)
1) I've never seen it so full 2) a fair number of pubs were closed due to pings 3) a lot of places are still short staffed but have stopped recruiting because the people don't exist (and once September arrives it's going to be easier to just close a few rooms off).
People always exist at the right rate of pay. North sea oil rigs don't have a population bobbing up and down on a rowing boat waiting to be hired once the rig exists, but the pay attracts the people from all over the world. Nor was there a huge unemployed population in walking distance from Shoe Lane hoping for a financial services outfit called Goldman Sachs to turn up.
Exactly. It's like when people ponder how conducive to poppy growing Afghan's climate and terroir is. Overlooking the fact that it is more the governance that is the deciding factor.
As for your point it would mean inflationary pressures build which, according to many on here, is a good thing but I'm not so sure
Governments and central banks have a number of mechanisms for targeting inflation. Controlling wages so that there is no-one available to do the job and fill the vacancy neither helps wealth creation or inflation control.
Hmm this is probably a positive move for the long term minimisation of the virus within Europe. And bad news for poorer countries reliant on Covax
I think this is increasingly going to be a problem....vaccine rollout was under the presumption that the vaccines were so good that a couple of shots would be good enough for a fair few years at least. If it turns out you need another shot every 6-12 months, poorer countries are really going to struggle with the cost, logistics and organisational requirements of such an operation (in fact I don't think it is even remotely feasible).
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
So a Union + SPD + Green coalition on 61% combined or a Union + SPD + FDP coalition on 57% combined still looks most likely
What has anything plus AfD got to do with anything? There is zero percent chance of the AfD being in any kind of coalition or vague understanding with any other party under any imaginable circumstances whatsoever after this election.
You also seem to have misread the opinion poll. 8% are "Sonstige", which are votes for parties that are extremely unlikely to get to the 5% threshold. So SPD+Green+Linke for example would have effectively 45 out of 92, ie 49% of members of parliament. (the HYUFD fantasy nonsense of Union+FDP+AfD would actually have a majority if the above poll was correct, FWIW, which is nothing)
Also, not sure why you think the options you give are more likely than Union+Green+FDP, or SPD+Green+FDP.
Other opinion polls are available. The the last 2 Kantars would give a small majority to SPD+Green+Linke, so there could be lots of options https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
The AfD win Budestag seats now that is the point, so any SPD-Green-Linke coalition needs more seats than Union-FDP-AfD to get a majority.
49% is not a majority of Parliament.
Otherwise either the Union or FDP will almost certainly have to be part of a governing coalition
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
I think most people? Whatever one thinks of Gove (and I think he is a bit of a King Cnut), he is actually competent. Johnson is a hopeless case. Doesn't make him wrong on the "once in a generation vote" thing though. A lot of us that thought Brexit was a pointless and foolhardy policy have accepted the democratic vote. You nats should do the same. Oh, but hang on, the words "nationalist" and democracy don't really have a great history together do they?
The winning 2014 vote was a campaign which promised to stay in the single market. A single throwaway remark from the former first minister doesn't matter a jot in comparison.
I assume by the throw away remark you mean the one by the chap since referred to as "a bully and a sex pest" by his QC.
Either way, my point is that there were all sorts of things promised in the 2016 referendum in favour of Leave that were misleading. Nonetheless a vote was held and the result is now respected by most. No-one seriously expects a further referendum on Europe for a generation. The Scots should also respect the same principle. It was a once in a generation referendum. It should remain that way.
Britain has had two further general elections since 2016 to decide the EU issue. Meanwhile in Scotland at the most recent UK and Scotland general elections the pro-referendum parties won. It's quite easy to see who is and isn't respecting democracy here.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
Even if the courts ruled it could go ahead the UK government could and would ignore the result unless near 100% turnout and a big Yes majority
It could in the same way it could ignore the Brexit referendum.
In reality the day after the referendum the result would be accepted by the overwhelming majority. Just as the Brexit referendum was, even by people who regretted the result.
We believe in democracy in this great country of ours. It's a shame you don't.
Plans for a huge post-Brexit lorry park at Guston on the outskirts of Dover have been radically scaled back. The site will have just 96 parking spaces for trucks, rather than 1,200.
Surely there must be some kind of tipping point looming up, where this government's accumulation of appaling administrative incompetences catches up with it to the point that it shows in the polls. Whatever you think of policies - good or bad - is almost irrelevant. They are just abysmal at execution. Reflecting the personna of the PM?
As the impact thus far on the popularity of the Cons has been minimal, it is actually more a crushing indictment of the official opposition as much as anything else, even allowing for Covid. It is difficult not to conclude that John Smith, Tony Blair (or Gordon Brown had he become leader in 1994) would have pulled way ahead by now.
The electors are not stupid. They can spot a dud, and have concluded that Labour are more incomptent than BJ's govt.
Heaven help us....
I find it hard to objectively judge the relative administrative incompetence of the current Ministry.
Most of the more damaging decisions have been taken quite politically, rather than arising over incompetence, and they retain support partly due to the politics.
And then there are some things that have gone well. Like many I had a largely smooth experience of being vaccinated.
One thing I noted at the time Johnson became PM was that his greatest achievement as London Mayor - improving cycling infrastructure - resulted from appointing a capable individual (Gilligan) who was able to get things done with their master's backing.
We saw the same with the vaccines. Clearly you will not find much competence sitting around the Cabinet table, but it might be that Johnson has appointed some other competent individual who is quietly working away beneath the radar.
The problem for Labour is that, unlike in the 1990s, they seem to have very few people to make a credible shadow Cabinet. One reason why the favourite to replace Starmer as leader isn't even in the Commons. Has Dodds been reshuffled yet?
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
You make a very good point, though it wouldn't even need to be Scots living in Scotland. It could be anyone in the UK. The devolved Scottish government does not have the power to call a referendum or administer it. I imagine an injunction would prevent any moves to implement it. I should think Nicola knows this. She will probably have her vote in the Scottish Parliament and then say that the judges are the "enemy of the people", or some kind of divisive nationalist bullshit.
If Sturgeon holds an illegal referendum after a court ruling against her in contempt of court Boris via the courts can then order her arrest of course.
Just as Rajoy did with Nationalist leaders who ignored the courts in Catalonia
Again this is a country with the rule of law not a fascist dictatorship of your imagination.
Boris doesn't control the courts - and quite right too!
Contempt of court is an arrestable offence, Sturgeon defying a court ruling against an indyref2 would be contempt of court initiating Sturgeon's arrest
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Compare this to the evac of Libya.....nice men in suits were already in the country quietly destroying anything sensitive and doing their business securing runaways weeks and taking out any hostiles that ventured close to compounds of British nations, way before the media started demanding flights out.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
Indeed, 😀.
So, folks, what is our best strategy ?
I think the general approach is to try and live as normally as possible, but taking sensible precautions like wearing an FFP3 mask in high traffic areas and depending on your risk tolerance avoiding very high risk environments i.e. massive crowded indoor environments.
You are still going to get exposed at some point, but hopefully a smaller dosage of it.
Here in Greece, right now, life is almost entirely done outdoors. Huge advantage
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Yes, they have been unbelievably incompetent. Abandoning the main base before the evacuation was complete! And that's without even mentioning their abandoning it like thieves in the night, without even telling the Afghan guards, a measure guaranteed to provoke collapse in the Afghan military.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
Even if the courts ruled it could go ahead the UK government could and would ignore the result unless near 100% turnout and a big Yes majority
It could in the same way it could ignore the Brexit referendum.
In reality the day after the referendum the result would be accepted by the overwhelming majority. Just as the Brexit referendum was, even by people who regretted the result.
We believe in democracy in this great country of ours. It's a shame you don't.
The Brexit referendum result was not respected by Parliament when there was no majority to respect it from 2017-19.
This Tory government has a majority in Parliament that will not allow nor respect the result of an indyref2 while it remains in power
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
Yes, indeed, far short of the 40% figure for Scottish Labour supporters of Independence being clung to by an earlier poster.
Hmm this is probably a positive move for the long term minimisation of the virus within Europe. And bad news for poorer countries reliant on Covax
I think this is increasingly going to be a problem....vaccine rollout was under the presumption that the vaccines were so good that a couple of shots would be good enough for a fair few years at least. If it turns out you need another shot every 6-12 months, poorer countries are really going to struggle with the cost, logistics and organisational requirements of such an operation (in fact I don't think it is even remotely feasible).
I expect the initial vaccine course will give protection from death and hospitalisation for many years. This would be massive for poorer nations. In the more connected & developed world boosters will be necessary to lower transmission. Plenty of pets get annual jabs, as do people here for the flu so it's not an intractable problem for a nation like the UK.
The issue for the UK is that we're really not keen on giving jabs out for the non vulnerable. I mean quite frankly I doubt I'll NEED another one for a good few years, if at all. But if it becomes a requirement of holidaying to various places it should be privately available as the flu jab is.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
Indeed, 😀.
So, folks, what is our best strategy ?
I think the general approach is to try and live as normally as possible, but taking sensible precautions like wearing an FFP3 mask in high traffic areas and depending on your risk tolerance avoiding very high risk environments i.e. massive crowded indoor environments.
You are still going to get exposed at some point, but hopefully a smaller dosage of it.
Here in Greece, right now, life is almost entirely done outdoors. Huge advantage
Britain in winter….
Screw global warming....fire up the Quattro patio heaters
Hmm this is probably a positive move for the long term minimisation of the virus within Europe. And bad news for poorer countries reliant on Covax
I think this is increasingly going to be a problem....vaccine rollout was under the presumption that the vaccines were so good that a couple of shots would be good enough for a fair few years at least. If it turns out you need another shot every 6-12 months, poorer countries are really going to struggle with the cost, logistics and organisational requirements of such an operation (in fact I don't think it is even remotely feasible).
It may just be do-able with easy vax like AZ. But hi-tech MRNA?
Maybe after 5-10 years the world will be able to set up the huge global infrastructure required to constantly jab everyone, but it will be enormous. Like recovering from World War 2
The implications for the global economy, for poorer countries reliant on tourism, jeez
'His life story is full of contrasts. He was seen as a hero for being the first Englishman to sail right around the world, and he played a major role in defending England from the Spanish Armada.
'But he was also involved in several horrific slave trading expeditions. Furthermore, as a privateer he looted and plundered Spanish towns and ships in Europe and throughout their Empire in the Americas.'
I don't know if you are aware of the facts of the Rathlin Island massacre of Irish and Scots victims of 1575 or Drake's involvement in it. Wikipedia should not of course automatically be treated as authoritative but I believe this account to be accurate
The wording as it stands makes no reference expressly or by implication to this terrible incident. There can be no excuse for overlooking it in what purports to be a comprehensive overview of Drake."
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
An interesting split, I assumed SLDs would be lower. So while not everyone who backs Indy parties backs Indy, and not everyone who backs Unionist parties backs the Union, it essentially balances out so we can act as though the SNP+Green figure exactly tallies with INdy support, and the same for the unionist figure.
Pretty much. I was mildly surprised at the SLD figure too, though it is from a pretty small base!
It should be said that the new SLD leader, Alex Cole-Hamilton, is volubly anti-Nat. No love lost there at all. Contrast with the rather happy-go-lucky Willie Rennie.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
HYUFD said "Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead".
The courts probably won't rule that way because the constitution is a reserved matter but if the courts did rule that way then the SNP would no longer be too weak to get a second referendum, it would be the rule of law.
Former Sheffield Hallam MP Jared O'Mara has been charged with seven counts of fraud. South Yorkshire Police said the charges related to a number of alleged fraudulent expenses claims.
Mr O'Mara, 39, is charged alongside former aide Gareth Arnold, who faces six counts of fraud, and a third man, John Woodliff, who faces a single charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act. They will appear before magistrates in Sheffield on 24 September.
The offences are said to have occurred between October 2018 and February 2020. The force said the charges brought against Mr O'Mara, of Walker Close, Sheffield, related to expenses claims submitted to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
"The charge relates to an allegation he made fraudulent invoices to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority jointly with Gareth Arnold, who is also charged with six counts of the same offence."
What a miserable specimen he was all round. Really reflects badly on Labour's processes for selecting candidates.
Did O'Mara ever speak in the Commons when he was an MP? One thing he did do was change the dress rules in the chamber. Apparently he had a health condition that made it difficult to wear a tie and exception for all MPs were agreed by Bercow.
I wonder if O'Mara (or Bercow, or Wilkinson) had ever heard of a clip-on tie.
A typically crass Bercow decision imo.
In itself it'd have been fine, but given the rest of how he conducted himself he does seem to have used his disability as an excuse for his inability or unwillingness to do the job.
Hmm this is probably a positive move for the long term minimisation of the virus within Europe. And bad news for poorer countries reliant on Covax
I think this is increasingly going to be a problem....vaccine rollout was under the presumption that the vaccines were so good that a couple of shots would be good enough for a fair few years at least. If it turns out you need another shot every 6-12 months, poorer countries are really going to struggle with the cost, logistics and organisational requirements of such an operation (in fact I don't think it is even remotely feasible).
It may just be do-able with easy vax like AZ. But hi-tech MRNA?
Maybe after 5-10 years the world will be able to set up the huge global infrastructure required to constantly jab everyone, but it will be enormous. Like recovering from World War 2
The implications for the global economy, for poorer countries reliant on tourism, jeez
Its a good job nobody tarnished the reputation of AZ with Fake News claims....
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Decent chance that the Northern Alliance could take Bagram in a couple of days if directed to. But not foreign assistance will be for-coming before Kabul is done.
Hmm this is probably a positive move for the long term minimisation of the virus within Europe. And bad news for poorer countries reliant on Covax
I think this is increasingly going to be a problem....vaccine rollout was under the presumption that the vaccines were so good that a couple of shots would be good enough for a fair few years at least. If it turns out you need another shot every 6-12 months, poorer countries are really going to struggle with the cost, logistics and organisational requirements of such an operation (in fact I don't think it is even remotely feasible).
I expect the initial vaccine course will give protection from death and hospitalisation for many years. Transmission protection will wane after about 270 days though.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
We all know HMG will not take Scotland to Court
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
You make a very good point, though it wouldn't even need to be Scots living in Scotland. It could be anyone in the UK. The devolved Scottish government does not have the power to call a referendum or administer it. I imagine an injunction would prevent any moves to implement it. I should think Nicola knows this. She will probably have her vote in the Scottish Parliament and then say that the judges are the "enemy of the people", or some kind of divisive nationalist bullshit.
If Sturgeon holds an illegal referendum after a court ruling against her in contempt of court Boris via the courts can then order her arrest of course.
Just as Rajoy did with Nationalist leaders who ignored the courts in Catalonia
Again this is a country with the rule of law not a fascist dictatorship of your imagination.
Boris doesn't control the courts - and quite right too!
Contempt of court is an arrestable offence, Sturgeon defying a court ruling against an indyref2 would be contempt of court initiating Sturgeon's arrest
If the courts wanted to rule that way then that'd be up to the courts, not Boris.
Boris quite rightly does not control the courts, I support Boris most of the time but the idea of him or any Prime Minister directing and controlling the courts is a horrifying concept.
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Retaking and securing Bagram at this point requires either airborne assault or a thunder run from Kabul on a road ill suited to heavy armour - which isn't in theatre anyway.
There are plenty of potential for casualties either way and the infrastructure will probably get fucked up so what exactly is the point now?
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
Whether he safely can or not we shall see, but it does explain why, from his perspective, ignoring makes sense.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
HYUFD said "Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead".
The courts probably won't rule that way because the constitution is a reserved matter but if the courts did rule that way then the SNP would no longer be too weak to get a second referendum, it would be the rule of law.
The Supreme Court will rule in favour of a reserved matter being within the competence of a devolved authority? Well, it's a view.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
Yes, indeed, far short of the 40% figure for Scottish Labour supporters of Independence being clung to by an earlier poster.
Another source of error in that original post.
There has certainly being polling with SLab numbers similar to that. Since Redfield & Wilton are new to this particular game we've no previous benchmark to help put their figures into context.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
HYUFD said "Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead".
The courts probably won't rule that way because the constitution is a reserved matter but if the courts did rule that way then the SNP would no longer be too weak to get a second referendum, it would be the rule of law.
The Supreme Court will rule in favour of a reserved matter being within the competence of a devolved authority? Well, it's a view.
It's what HYUFD said, not me. That's what I was responding to.
Do you accept the premise that if the courts did rule that way as HYUFD said (unlikely but remotely possible IMHO) then the rule of law and fair play would mean that there would be a legal referendum afterwards. Since that's how the courts ruled in his scenario?
Raab statement raises more questions than it answers. Why didn't he say any of this over the last two days, despite multiple opportunities? What exactly is this security of the airport given that has largely been carried out by US and Turkish troops? https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1428676158644699138/photo/1
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
And you will still lose indyref2
and also Scots are opposed to increases in fuel bills to pay for green energy
Oppose 53%
Support 30%
Good start for the SNP-Green whatever it is
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Johnson is too big a scaredy cat to find out.
Who’d’ve thought Gove had the bigger cajones?
For all our disagreements I think we agree there is no certainty over indyref2 and to be honest I just do not see it is difficult for Boris or any PM to defer to post the 2024 election, as we still have covid and the huge costs to be mitigated before it is even sensible to consider independence
Indeed I understand most Scots are not in favour of an early referendum
To defer the next Scottish independence referendum is not in the gift of Boris Johnson. The Scots have expressed their will at the ballot box.
I am afraid it is
If he thinks so and wants to try his luck, he’ll have to take the Scottish Government to court.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead it means nothing, Union matters remain reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Courts cannot overrule statute.
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
You're absolutely wrong.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
No, you're wrong.
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
HYUFD said "Even if it went to court and the court ruled the indyref2 could go ahead".
The courts probably won't rule that way because the constitution is a reserved matter but if the courts did rule that way then the SNP would no longer be too weak to get a second referendum, it would be the rule of law.
Yes and even in the unlikely event of the court allowing the SNP a second referendum it would be no more than a glorified opinion poll and Westminster could still ignore the result.
The future of the Union remains a reserved matter to the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998
Amazingly my 2 minute antigen for travel test is negative. Has anyone EVER had a positive and been forced to stay on holiday?
Not covid positive, but I had the experience of the one flight a week off a pacific island I was staying got cancelled because of bad weather on the day and I was forced to stay there another week.....its was absolutely hell I tell you ;-)
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
An interesting split, I assumed SLDs would be lower. So while not everyone who backs Indy parties backs Indy, and not everyone who backs Unionist parties backs the Union, it essentially balances out so we can act as though the SNP+Green figure exactly tallies with INdy support, and the same for the unionist figure.
Pretty much. I was mildly surprised at the SLD figure too, though it is from a pretty small base!
It should be said that the new SLD leader, Alex Cole-Hamilton, is volubly anti-Nat. No love lost there at all. Contrast with the rather happy-go-lucky Willie Rennie.
I'm well aware of AC-H's proclivities. His main distinguishing feature for me was that just about everyone thought his Salmond enquiry contributions were crap, even the fanbois promoting the talents of there's been a Murdo and La Baillie.
The key phrase there is that this rapid capitulation was just a possible scenario, not the most plausible scenario.
So the CIA was painting a prettier picture than the likely reality.
More that as the scenarios filtered up the system, the undesirable ones are shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
The use of best-medium-worst case methodology to cover people in a hierarchy from blame is an interesting phenomenon. You can say that "I did say", while at the same time not offend the senior people by giving them a report they don't want to read.
Giving the people at the top information they don't want to have seen, is often considered the most offensive thing you can do. Short of their-wife-on-board-room-table scenarios.
The recruitment and promotion processes in our society are biased against pessimists, so people inclined to ponder the worst-case scenario don't make it high up the hierarchy, and avoidable disasters become experienced disasters.
Boris Johnson is the living embodiment of this problem - but I am still confident that his jovial optimism will see him safely home at the next general election.
Very early in my career I was asked a question by someone very very senior. So I told him the truth.
My boss sat me down to explain what I had done - by telling the Big Boss the truth, in front of people, was a tremendous slap in the face for him. Because the Big Boss couldn't go against the consensus of his peers. But now, since he Knew, he could be blamed when things went wrong. Unless he started insulting everyone by telling them what he had been told.
The real problem is that people presenting data that contradicts The Policy are considered to be the problem. See Herman Kahn etc..
I make a joke of "management-speak bullshit" when I come out with it. But I only quote the ones that work. And owning a problem is absolutely there. Had a senior exec when I was a junior spod at Nestle explain how to deal with a problem. His advice was to own it. "Here is the issue, here are our options, here is how I'd fix it" - doubly so if you created the issue.
Yes, if you have a prannock at the top who doesn't want the truth then it may be Bad. I've departed a couple of businesses with a sack of cash when the truth was too uncomfortable for the prannock. Both times I have proven to be right and them wrong. So whatever, their loss.
The joy of taking a "the number is the number" approach is that when the shit hits the fan you can point out that you called it truthfully all the way through. Making stuff up to cover someone else's mess just creates a web of lies that grows legs and takes over. And the problem you called sits there getting worse.
That's fine for a business, as far as it goes. But what "here's how I'd fix it" options were available to those who were inclined to tell their superiors the truth about Afghanistan ?
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?
Trump signed a deal to totally withdraw from Afghanistan and hand control to the Taliban in exchange for not being shot at on departure. Biden delays from 1st May and then prannocks like HYUFD try to blame Biden for the Taliban having control.
What could have been done? The deal is to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban. So as NATO troops withdraw back towards Kabul manage the perimeter, bring people out with them, do it gradually as Biden was.
What has gone wrong is that the permiter was being largely managed by their expensive Afghan army colleagues who have seen the writing on the wall and switched sides. So the "here's how I'd fix it" would be to maintain sufficient NATO forces as to now let that happen. Or at the very least as the collapse to the Taliban starts to accelerate recognise that you need a big fuck off airlift and that means flying in your own forces to manage it.
Trump’s deal was dreadful. But Biden’s admin got a billion things wrong, which has made it much worse
Just one was this shameful scuttling out of Bagram air base, which would, by the by, be extremely useful now in the evacuation ...
So a Union + SPD + Green coalition on 61% combined or a Union + SPD + FDP coalition on 57% combined still looks most likely
What has anything plus AfD got to do with anything? There is zero percent chance of the AfD being in any kind of coalition or vague understanding with any other party under any imaginable circumstances whatsoever after this election.
You also seem to have misread the opinion poll. 8% are "Sonstige", which are votes for parties that are extremely unlikely to get to the 5% threshold. So SPD+Green+Linke for example would have effectively 45 out of 92, ie 49% of members of parliament. (the HYUFD fantasy nonsense of Union+FDP+AfD would actually have a majority if the above poll was correct, FWIW, which is nothing)
Also, not sure why you think the options you give are more likely than Union+Green+FDP, or SPD+Green+FDP.
Other opinion polls are available. The the last 2 Kantars would give a small majority to SPD+Green+Linke, so there could be lots of options https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
The AfD win Budestag seats now that is the point, so any SPD-Green-Linke coalition needs more seats than Union-FDP-AfD to get a majority.
49% is not a majority of Parliament.
Otherwise either the Union or FDP will almost certainly have to be part of a governing coalition
Umm why are you saying 49% is not a majority? When has anyone said it was?
Of course SPD-Green-Linke (or any other coalition for that matter) needs to have more seats than all the other parties in parliament to have a majority, I would have thought that was contained within the definition of the word "majority". You could also just look at the SPD-Green-Linke total to see if they have a majority, so not sure why you would want to look at the Union-FDP-AfD total to figure it out. Of course it works just as well, but it does seem a bit of a strange approach...
You are right that if the Infratest poll was replicated in the election there would be no majority without at least one of Union or FDP, but that doesn't mean that the options you gave are the only ones or necessarily the most likely ones.
Just asking since I know nothing about Afghanistan but I don't understand the Bagram thing.
How are the people fleeing the Taliban who can't get down the road to the airport in Kabul supposed to get to Bagram?
They could always try and phone the Taliban complaints department
Tariq Ghazniwal Retweeted Tariq Ghazniwal @TGhazniwal · Aug 7 Taliban:Therefore, all should remain in their places with assurance and without any fear of threats. The Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate will protect and safeguard all their rights, Allah willing.
Contact number of Complaints Department : 0093794717946
I see we are back to fearmongering and irrationality on PB. No wonder I took a month off. Out in the real world, people are happily getting on with their lives.
Could mention that UK Nationals were advised to leave immediately two weeks ago.....
This isn't meant to absolve any cockups from the government but it will sound like it, but even with the heightened expectations on what governments can and should do in the modern era, we do still expect a bit too much from them if we think they can predict the actions and thus safeguard every British citizen whereever they may be on earth. Unless they are Don Pacifico.
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley: "Good question. Great question."
Yes, they have been unbelievably incompetent. Abandoning the main base before the evacuation was complete! And that's without even mentioning their abandoning it like thieves in the night, without even telling the Afghan guards, a measure guaranteed to provoke collapse in the Afghan military.
I’m a drunken fool stuffed with Arcadian feta and even I know that you hold on to your main airbase right to the end. Just in case *something goes wrong*
I can see the logic of military withdrawal overall, even I don’t totally concur. America can’t stay in Afghanistan forever.
But I don’t even begin to see the logic of some of the shit they’ve done. Like running away from Bagram FIRST. In the night. On the quiet. Like a defeated army. Which they were not
With this statement (rather than trying to ignore the stories) and the frenetic PR activity around the Foreign Sec in last 24 hours, is clear that those around him are worried.
Also notable that save for his PPS we haven’t seen many Conservative MPs come to his defence. Presumably another one of the reasons why those around him might be concerned.
Just asking since I know nothing about Afghanistan but I don't understand the Bagram thing.
How are the people fleeing the Taliban who can't get down the road to the airport in Kabul supposed to get to Bagram?
They could always try and phone the Taliban complaints department
Tariq Ghazniwal Retweeted Tariq Ghazniwal @TGhazniwal · Aug 7 Taliban:Therefore, all should remain in their places with assurance and without any fear of threats. The Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate will protect and safeguard all their rights, Allah willing.
Contact number of Complaints Department : 0093794717946
I feel like the last two words are quite critical. Perhaps Allah will not be willing to safeguard their rights.
Raab statement raises more questions than it answers. Why didn't he say any of this over the last two days, despite multiple opportunities? What exactly is this security of the airport given that has largely been carried out by US and Turkish troops? https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1428676158644699138/photo/1
That's the odd thing. A "Pah, tittle-tattle, getting on with the job" non-statement might be caddish, but it gives the reptiles of Fleet Street nothing to get their teeth into. Once you start trying to explain, you're already losing...
That's the odd thing. A "Pah, tittle-tattle, getting on with the job" non-statement might be caddish, but it gives the reptiles of Fleet Street nothing to get their teeth into. Once you start trying to explain, you're already losing...
Utterly offtopic but from my visit to the Lakes yesterday ( a damp Thursday in August)
1) I've never seen it so full 2) a fair number of pubs were closed due to pings 3) a lot of places are still short staffed but have stopped recruiting because the people don't exist (and once September arrives it's going to be easier to just close a few rooms off).
People always exist at the right rate of pay. North sea oil rigs don't have a population bobbing up and down on a rowing boat waiting to be hired once the rig exists, but the pay attracts the people from all over the world. Nor was there a huge unemployed population in walking distance from Shoe Lane hoping for a financial services outfit called Goldman Sachs to turn up.
Exactly. It's like when people ponder how conducive to poppy growing Afghan's climate and terroir is. Overlooking the fact that it is more the governance that is the deciding factor.
As for your point it would mean inflationary pressures build which, according to many on here, is a good thing but I'm not so sure
Opium poppies are notably easy to grow and even easier to harvest. A perfect crop. So it’s much more about the legal situation/lawlessness of any locale
They grow particularly well in East Anglia and the Fens, and in the 16th-18th centuries there was a big fenland tradition of ‘poppy tea’ - to take away the agues and tediums of their watery lifestyle
i thought harvesting the required ingredient from opium poppies was very labour intensive. of course if you just meant for pot pourri then it probably is quite simple.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
The other question is the opportunity cost of spending the next x years determinedly avoiding the virus. They will be the youngest x years you have left.
And yet, if a nasal vaccine is approved and/or a Delta variant busting version of the vaccines, then your chance of catching Covid ceases to look so inevitable.
I think that if everyone would stop wearing masks then I'd feel a lot safer and be happier about going out. I'm really confused by those people who spend so long castigating others for taking risks by not wearing masks, while they take risks by going everywhere. There's no logical consistency.
Then factor in that 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.
That would make for 63% in favour of Independence - which we know is currently way off. Possible explanations: 1. Single sub-samples taken in isolation are almost worthless. 2. A substantial proportion of SNP/Green voters are pro-Union.
Which explanation do you think is closer to the mark?
I seem to remember seeing a poll that indicated that a substantial proportion of Scottish Green supporters are not in favour of independence. Robin Harper, the former leader of the Scottish Greens, was warning fairly recently against the Green preoccupation with Indy. I think he has a point. They seem far more energised by that and trans issues then they do with the environment.
In the latest opinion poll on Scottish Independence 11% of those who said they voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood constituency vote said that they would vote against Scottish Independence.
Of course for SLab, SCon & SLDs the figs that would vote Yes were respectively 13%, 4% and 10%.
An interesting split, I assumed SLDs would be lower. So while not everyone who backs Indy parties backs Indy, and not everyone who backs Unionist parties backs the Union, it essentially balances out so we can act as though the SNP+Green figure exactly tallies with INdy support, and the same for the unionist figure.
Pretty much. I was mildly surprised at the SLD figure too, though it is from a pretty small base!
It should be said that the new SLD leader, Alex Cole-Hamilton, is volubly anti-Nat. No love lost there at all. Contrast with the rather happy-go-lucky Willie Rennie.
I'm well aware of AC-H's proclivities. His main distinguishing feature for me was that just about everyone thought his Salmond enquiry contributions were crap, even the fanbois promoting the talents of there's been a Murdo and La Baillie.
Yeah, he got off on the wrong foot entirely with his opening question to Salmond and never recovered. The other Tory, Margaret Mitchell, was useless too. Should have just left it to Jackie and Murdo, particularly Jackie who should really be SLAB leader.
Utterly offtopic but from my visit to the Lakes yesterday ( a damp Thursday in August)
1) I've never seen it so full 2) a fair number of pubs were closed due to pings 3) a lot of places are still short staffed but have stopped recruiting because the people don't exist (and once September arrives it's going to be easier to just close a few rooms off).
People always exist at the right rate of pay. North sea oil rigs don't have a population bobbing up and down on a rowing boat waiting to be hired once the rig exists, but the pay attracts the people from all over the world. Nor was there a huge unemployed population in walking distance from Shoe Lane hoping for a financial services outfit called Goldman Sachs to turn up.
Exactly. It's like when people ponder how conducive to poppy growing Afghan's climate and terroir is. Overlooking the fact that it is more the governance that is the deciding factor.
As for your point it would mean inflationary pressures build which, according to many on here, is a good thing but I'm not so sure
Opium poppies are notably easy to grow and even easier to harvest. A perfect crop. So it’s much more about the legal situation/lawlessness of any locale
They grow particularly well in East Anglia and the Fens, and in the 16th-18th centuries there was a big fenland tradition of ‘poppy tea’ - to take away the agues and tediums of their watery lifestyle
i thought harvesting the required ingredient from opium poppies was very labour intensive. of course if you just meant for pot pourri then it probably is quite simple.
You just have to incise the poppy head and the milky sap oozes, and you let it dry - and that’s opium
And you can do it again and again
No idea if it can be mechanised. Maybe no one has tried because it’s always grown in poor countries with cheap labour
That's the odd thing. A "Pah, tittle-tattle, getting on with the job" non-statement might be caddish, but it gives the reptiles of Fleet Street nothing to get their teeth into. Once you start trying to explain, you're already losing...
So a Union + SPD + Green coalition on 61% combined or a Union + SPD + FDP coalition on 57% combined still looks most likely
What has anything plus AfD got to do with anything? There is zero percent chance of the AfD being in any kind of coalition or vague understanding with any other party under any imaginable circumstances whatsoever after this election.
You also seem to have misread the opinion poll. 8% are "Sonstige", which are votes for parties that are extremely unlikely to get to the 5% threshold. So SPD+Green+Linke for example would have effectively 45 out of 92, ie 49% of members of parliament. (the HYUFD fantasy nonsense of Union+FDP+AfD would actually have a majority if the above poll was correct, FWIW, which is nothing)
Also, not sure why you think the options you give are more likely than Union+Green+FDP, or SPD+Green+FDP.
Other opinion polls are available. The the last 2 Kantars would give a small majority to SPD+Green+Linke, so there could be lots of options https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
The AfD win Budestag seats now that is the point, so any SPD-Green-Linke coalition needs more seats than Union-FDP-AfD to get a majority.
49% is not a majority of Parliament.
Otherwise either the Union or FDP will almost certainly have to be part of a governing coalition
Umm why are you saying 49% is not a majority? When has anyone said it was?
Of course SPD-Green-Linke (or any other coalition for that matter) needs to have more seats than all the other parties in parliament to have a majority, I would have thought that was contained within the definition of the word "majority". You could also just look at the SPD-Green-Linke total to see if they have a majority, so not sure why you would want to look at the Union-FDP-AfD total to figure it out. Of course it works just as well, but it does seem a bit of a strange approach...
You are right that if the Infratest poll was replicated in the election there would be no majority without at least one of Union or FDP, but that doesn't mean that the options you gave are the only ones or necessarily the most likely ones.
With approximately 8% of the vote ignored for seat allocation purposes, 47 out of 92 could very well be a majority.
My family in Cornwall is freaking out about the crazy rise in cases down there. Previously optimistic fam members are now predicting a bad 4th wave and maybe another lockdown
May St Piran preserve us
Cases per 100k during pandemic:
Cornwall 5,235 South-West 6,793 England 9,866
A lot of gaps to be filled in Cornwall and even more in rural Devon.
Delta is going to infect everyone at some point.
For the vaccinated that's not likely to be a problem.
Covid? No. Long Covid? Yes.
I Do Not want to catch Covid. However inconvenient my partial withdrawal from consumerism may be for the right wing.
No-one wants to catch COVID, but @another_richard is right that we all will catch it sometime over the next few years.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
Also better to try and not get it via a massive exposure to huge viral load....
Indeed, 😀.
So, folks, what is our best strategy ?
I caught it in Feb, and been double AstraZeneca-ed since. I feel pretty bulletproof for this winter at least.
The departure from Bagram, whilst a grotesque cockup, is oversold. They had had a walk through with the Afghan security forces a couple of days before as part of the departure/handover process. That the Americans were leaving wasn't a surprise, the failure to notify the exact time and the shutting off of power was.
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says you are contacted every day of the year and on every holiday when yo are in the job "I am surprised Dominic Raab chose to delegate this to a junior minister." https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1428680114712231940
Could mention that UK Nationals were advised to leave immediately two weeks ago.....
This isn't meant to absolve any cockups from the government but it will sound like it, but even with the heightened expectations on what governments can and should do in the modern era, we do still expect a bit too much from them if we think they can predict the actions and thus safeguard every British citizen whereever they may be on earth. Unless they are Don Pacifico.
I think the Embassy in Kabul pretty quickly picked up on which way the wind was blowing. In the hierarchy of FCO advice "leave immediately" is at the top - and that was two weeks ago. Milder versions include "carefully consider" "make plans" "avoid non-essential travel". This was get out now which they don't use lightly because of the impact on bilateral relations.
We've also seen that they had started to evacuate Afghan citizens -
Meanwhile, at the US Embassy they were burning the passports of Afghan applicants....
1 in 80 just this week. This has been going for 80 weeks. At what point will EVERYONE either have had the bug, been vaxxed, or both? Unless reinfection is a real issue, or the vaccines seriously wane, surely this burns out soon?
Comments
So it is would be quite considerate to only have 4 animals to deal with.
Rule of law is important. Unless you are a a member of the SNP or the Taliban it seems.
Gove said he wouldn’t, but then Johnson is no brainbox.
So, it just comes down to when do you want to catch it.
1. Clinical treatments generally improve over time, so it is better to catch it later. Treatment -- if you get a serious bout of COVID -- is likely to be better, and we will know more about the disease
2. However, outcomes (even if double-jabbed) are worse the older you are. So delaying the inevitable by 5 years may not be optimum. Better to get it at 55 than 60, probably.
It is not clear to me what the balance is.
If the SNP decide to hold their own indyref2 it will be in the Scottish Courts from Scots living in Scotland who oppose it
https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1428669442867740677?s=20
* I expect he'll be marked/have some distinguishing feature anyway.
One thing about paywall journalism, the twitter headline doesn't allow examination of the story behind.
I am fairly relaxed about most things, but I am going to be passing on a number of tickets for gigs that I have over the coming months. In the mosh pit with 1000s of other people in hot sweaty environment for 4-5hrs doesn't seem like a particular sensible idea.
The new rules mean you are only considered immune from Covid-19 for 270 days after your 2nd vaccine.
https://twitter.com/WhichUK/status/1428266191169142785?s=20
So even if Yes won Westminster would ignore the result and given large numbers of Unionists would boycott it it would need not only a Yes win but for a majority of the Scottish electorate not just the voters who took part to vote Yes for Westminster to take any notice.
As Madrid showed in Catalonia independence referendums without central government endorsement can be ignored.
So, folks, what is our best strategy ?
I too have been a bit OTT in recent comments. So I need to dial it back a bit. I don't really think all men are bastards and appreciate the debate on here.
Time to spend a bit more time in the garden and less time fretting about stuff I can do nothing about.
Have a nice day all.
Particularly if you're vaccinated, have a healthy immune system, are otherwise healthy and are not particularly old (All three apply to @Rochdalepioneers )
Lamborn asks if it is "at all possible" for the United States to keep open Bagram Airfield.
Gen. Milley responds that it is not tactically necessary.
(June 23rd)
By contrast 44% of Democrats say the withdrawal would still have been right even in those circumstances to 36% who say it would have been wrong.
So the division is ideological not just to do with Biden
https://morningconsult.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-polling/
You are still going to get exposed at some point, but hopefully a smaller dosage of it.
Britain is a country with a history of fair play, not fascism.
If the courts ruled that an IndyRef could go ahead then it could go ahead. Madrid shows us nothing. Remind me of the court case in Spain ruling the Catalan referendum could go ahead anyway.
You also seem to have misread the opinion poll. 8% are "Sonstige", which are votes for parties that are extremely unlikely to get to the 5% threshold.
So SPD+Green+Linke for example would have effectively 45 out of 92, ie 49% of members of parliament. (the HYUFD fantasy nonsense of Union+FDP+AfD would actually have a majority if the above poll was correct, FWIW, which is nothing)
Also, not sure why you think the options you give are more likely than Union+Green+FDP, or SPD+Green+FDP.
Other opinion polls are available. The the last 2 Kantars would give a small majority to SPD+Green+Linke, so there could be lots of options
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/emnid.htm
I was mildly surprised at the SLD figure too, though it is from a pretty small base!
https://metro.co.uk/2017/07/04/john-hayes-disregard-for-his-colleagues-disability-is-a-sign-that-hes-seriously-out-of-touch-6754075/
I wonder if O'Mara (or Bercow, or Wilkinson) had ever heard of a clip-on tie.
A typically crass Bercow decision imo.
Just as Rajoy did with Nationalist leaders who ignored the courts in Catalonia
Look at this prescient tweet below that
https://twitter.com/rubytuesday828/status/1407724789519765506?s=21
Random journalists on Twitter could see what the American military/intel/political elite could not
Boris doesn't control the courts - and quite right too!
.@DanLamothe of @washingtonpost - "Bagram has two runways. Would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside. Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?"
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley:
"Good question. Great question."
https://twitter.com/howardmortman/status/1428084953665966085?s=21
Jesus F Christ. They’re fools
The truth is that Scotland is in a holding pattern with the country split down the middle, and attitudes hardening.
The SNP are too strong to be removed from Holyrood, but too weak to achieve a referendum never mind win one. The economic arguments are unwinnable for them.
Eventually something will give. Maybe their rotten record in Govt will catch up with them. Or some sequence of events that generates a big swing to Indy with over 60% support. But no sign of either at the moment.
Boris can quite safely truck on and ignore.
49% is not a majority of Parliament.
Otherwise either the Union or FDP will almost certainly have to be part of a governing coalition
In reality the day after the referendum the result would be accepted by the overwhelming majority. Just as the Brexit referendum was, even by people who regretted the result.
We believe in democracy in this great country of ours. It's a shame you don't.
Most of the more damaging decisions have been taken quite politically, rather than arising over incompetence, and they retain support partly due to the politics.
And then there are some things that have gone well. Like many I had a largely smooth experience of being vaccinated.
One thing I noted at the time Johnson became PM was that his greatest achievement as London Mayor - improving cycling infrastructure - resulted from appointing a capable individual (Gilligan) who was able to get things done with their master's backing.
We saw the same with the vaccines. Clearly you will not find much competence sitting around the Cabinet table, but it might be that Johnson has appointed some other competent individual who is quietly working away beneath the radar.
The problem for Labour is that, unlike in the 1990s, they seem to have very few people to make a credible shadow Cabinet. One reason why the favourite to replace Starmer as leader isn't even in the Commons. Has Dodds been reshuffled yet?
Britain in winter….
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/20/biden-afghanistan-kabul-chaos-taliban-evacuation-505600
This Tory government has a majority in Parliament that will not allow nor respect the result of an indyref2 while it remains in power
Another source of error in that original post.
The issue for the UK is that we're really not keen on giving jabs out for the non vulnerable. I mean quite frankly I doubt I'll NEED another one for a good few years, if at all. But if it becomes a requirement of holidaying to various places it should be privately available as the flu jab is.
Quattropatio heatersMaybe after 5-10 years the world will be able to set up the huge global infrastructure required to constantly jab everyone, but it will be enormous. Like recovering from World War 2
The implications for the global economy, for poorer countries reliant on tourism, jeez
"I have no comment to make about the Interpretation Board generally but the wording as set out in the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9899375/PC-plaque-Sir-Francis-Drake-statue-ahead-despite-backed-just-ONE-resident.html cannot be allowed to stand. The wording says
'His life story is full of contrasts. He was seen as a hero for being the first Englishman to sail right around the world, and he played a major role in defending England from the Spanish Armada.
'But he was also involved in several horrific slave trading expeditions. Furthermore, as a privateer he looted and plundered Spanish towns and ships in Europe and throughout their Empire in the Americas.'
I don't know if you are aware of the facts of the Rathlin Island massacre of Irish and Scots victims of 1575 or Drake's involvement in it. Wikipedia should not of course automatically be treated as authoritative but I believe this account to be accurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathlin_Island_massacre
The wording as it stands makes no reference expressly or by implication to this terrible incident. There can be no excuse for overlooking it in what purports to be a comprehensive overview of Drake."
The courts probably won't rule that way because the constitution is a reserved matter but if the courts did rule that way then the SNP would no longer be too weak to get a second referendum, it would be the rule of law.
My statement responding to the inaccurate media reporting over recent days.
https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1428672668983873545?s=20
Boris quite rightly does not control the courts, I support Boris most of the time but the idea of him or any Prime Minister directing and controlling the courts is a horrifying concept.
There are plenty of potential for casualties either way and the infrastructure will probably get fucked up so what exactly is the point now?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-statement-20-august-2021
Could mention that UK Nationals were advised to leave immediately two weeks ago.....
How are the people fleeing the Taliban who can't get down the road to the airport in Kabul supposed to get to Bagram?
Do you accept the premise that if the courts did rule that way as HYUFD said (unlikely but remotely possible IMHO) then the rule of law and fair play would mean that there would be a legal referendum afterwards. Since that's how the courts ruled in his scenario?
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1428676158644699138/photo/1
The future of the Union remains a reserved matter to the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998
Of course SPD-Green-Linke (or any other coalition for that matter) needs to have more seats than all the other parties in parliament to have a majority, I would have thought that was contained within the definition of the word "majority". You could also just look at the SPD-Green-Linke total to see if they have a majority, so not sure why you would want to look at the Union-FDP-AfD total to figure it out. Of course it works just as well, but it does seem a bit of a strange approach...
You are right that if the Infratest poll was replicated in the election there would be no majority without at least one of Union or FDP, but that doesn't mean that the options you gave are the only ones or necessarily the most likely ones.
Tariq Ghazniwal Retweeted
Tariq Ghazniwal
@TGhazniwal
·
Aug 7
Taliban:Therefore, all should remain in their places with assurance and without any fear of threats. The Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate will protect and safeguard all their rights, Allah willing.
Contact number of Complaints Department : 0093794717946
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1428673752691314693
I can see the logic of military withdrawal overall, even I don’t totally concur. America can’t stay in Afghanistan forever.
But I don’t even begin to see the logic of some of the shit they’ve done. Like running away from Bagram FIRST. In the night. On the quiet. Like a defeated army. Which they were not
Also notable that save for his PPS we haven’t seen many Conservative MPs come to his defence. Presumably another one of the reasons why those around him might be concerned.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1428677701271969793
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1428678409119481861
The ONS reports 698,100 people within the community in England had COVID-19 in the week ending 14 August
Read more here: https://trib.al/lxQtlJb https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1428679174319972356/video/1
And yet, if a nasal vaccine is approved and/or a Delta variant busting version of the vaccines, then your chance of catching Covid ceases to look so inevitable.
I think that if everyone would stop wearing masks then I'd feel a lot safer and be happier about going out. I'm really confused by those people who spend so long castigating others for taking risks by not wearing masks, while they take risks by going everywhere. There's no logical consistency.
And you can do it again and again
No idea if it can be mechanised. Maybe no one has tried because it’s always grown in poor countries with cheap labour
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1428680114712231940
So, he shouldn't resign for being lazy, he should resign for being fucking useless...
We've also seen that they had started to evacuate Afghan citizens -
Meanwhile, at the US Embassy they were burning the passports of Afghan applicants....