Howdy, Stranger!

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

Raab puts the pathetic in apathetic, which might save him – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 1 in General
Raab puts the pathetic in apathetic, which might save him – politicalbetting.com

Dominic Raab is currently being questioned by MPs over his conduct during the Afghanistan crisis. Here is a reminder of where the public stood on the calls for his resignation at the time:Should resign – 33% Should not resign – 25% Don't know – 42% https://t.co/WiACS5Bo1W pic.twitter.com/kTsbbZMl08

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Test.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013
    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 1
    Foxy said:

    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

    Yes.

    As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013

    Foxy said:

    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

    Yes.

    As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.
    Yes, but has any other minister noticed these things?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013
    Incidentally, great Fast Show clip.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,327
    Mogadon man was Sir Geoffrey Howe, as dubbed by Denis Healey.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
    As many times as you need to understand

    The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

    The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

    It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
    I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

    The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
    No, it’s a totally different thing.

    The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

    Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
    I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

    This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

    You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
    Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

    The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
    So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

    Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
    MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

    Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

    marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
    Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?
    Sure.

    But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.

    This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”

    50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.

    FPT

    - a majority of seats at Westminster
    - ditto Holyrood
    - a majority of the vote at the latter

    All for an independence referendum (not even demanding actual independence)

    The more you come out with stuff like that, the more you delegitimise the standing of your own party.




  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    This all seems like a charade to me. Raab, his questioners, the media take on it, the whole thing.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,022
    edited September 1
    So the Americans allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of the Taliban, and now they're being given to Iran.
  • Andy_JS said:

    So the Americans allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of the Taliban, and now they're being handed over to Iran.

    There's a lot of fake news about the amount of matériel the Americans left behind.

    Here's a couple of threads on it

    https://twitter.com/JJSchroden/status/1432144278432718857

    and

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1432332226935590917
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    Well we know Bozo isn’t going to sack him any time soon….
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,436
    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 1
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
    As many times as you need to understand

    The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

    The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

    It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
    I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

    The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
    No, it’s a totally different thing.

    The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

    Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
    I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

    This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

    You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
    Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

    The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
    So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

    Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
    MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

    Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

    marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
    Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?
    Sure.

    But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.

    This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”

    50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.

    FPT

    - a majority of seats at Westminster
    - ditto Holyrood
    - a majority of the vote at the latter

    All for an independence referendum (not even demanding actual independence)

    The more you come out with stuff like that, the more you delegitimise the standing of your own party.




    It does not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% of the vote and seats at Holyrood, the future of the union is a matter reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998.

    This government has made clear it will not grant indyref2 before the next general election and polling shows most Scots do not want an independence referendum before the next general election and until 2026 anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 1

    Foxy said:

    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

    Yes.

    As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.
    It is Biden responsible for 1, not Raab.

    In terms of 2 there is still no hard border in Ireland.

    In terms of 3 there is now a UK and EU FTA.

    2 and 3 both achieved with Raab as FS
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Extinction Rebellion activists smash windows of JP Morgan with hammers and chisels
    https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1433031883978383364?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,319
    Foxy said:

    Incidentally, great Fast Show clip.

    No it isn't...
  • Don't worry everyone.
    The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
    National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
    National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

    Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

    National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

    Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
    I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
    No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

    Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
    Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

    Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
    No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

    Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
    Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

    He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
    Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
    No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

    Its not paying off the mortage.

    That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    FPT. Thanks to @MrEd for the Madchester clip from the US. Been looking for it for some time to show youngest, who has just got into Smiths, Joy Division et al.
    Predictable response though...
    Seen it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743

    Foxy said:

    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

    Yes.

    As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.
    A justification for Johnson to keep Raab on your 3 key premises:

    1. Raab was provided with a false intel narrative by Biden and Ben Wallace.

    2. Why did Hume and Trimble not take account of Brexit when crafting the GFA?

    3. Approximately 22 miles is a bloody long way on foot and on the water!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,964
    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
    The Franklin quote is not of course "Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither" as @contrarian puts it but:

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

    The difference in emphasis is very important.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

    Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

    Yes.

    As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.
    It is Biden responsible for 1, not Raab.

    In terms of 2 there is still no hard border in Ireland.

    In terms of 3 there is now a UK and EU FTA
    Buit there is a hard border down the Irish Sea. And we still do not have customs controls into what is left of the UK. "Take Back control", my sharny ****.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
    As many times as you need to understand

    The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

    The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

    It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
    I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

    The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
    No, it’s a totally different thing.

    The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

    Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
    I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

    This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

    You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
    Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

    The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
    So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

    Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
    MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

    Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

    marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
    Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?
    Sure.

    But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.

    This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”

    50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.

    FPT

    - a majority of seats at Westminster
    - ditto Holyrood
    - a majority of the vote at the latter

    All for an independence referendum (not even demanding actual independence)

    The more you come out with stuff like that, the more you delegitimise the standing of your own party.




    It does not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% of the vote and seats at Holyrood, the future of the union is a matter reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998.

    This government has made clear it will not grant indyref2 before the next general election and polling shows most Scots do not want an independence referendum before the next general election and until 2026 anyway
    "grant"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    Andy_JS said:

    So the Americans allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of the Taliban, and now they're being given to Iran.

    To be fair, the Iranian armed forces are already pretty much all US manufactured, so it makes perfect sense.

    Of course, the poor bastards were hoping for some F-4s and Phantoms to scavenge for spare parts and have been rather annoyed that none of the stuff they've got from the Taliban is 1970s vintage.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    Why would the Taliban, Sunni fundamentalists as they are, be handing weapons over to the Shi'a Satan Iran? They despise them possibly more than the Americans.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,964

    Andy_JS said:

    So the Americans allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of the Taliban, and now they're being handed over to Iran.

    There's a lot of fake news about the amount of matériel the Americans left behind.

    Here's a couple of threads on it

    https://twitter.com/JJSchroden/status/1432144278432718857

    and

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1432332226935590917

    That first thread would be a helluva lot better without all those f*cking annoying gifs!
  • kinabalu said:

    This all seems like a charade to me. Raab, his questioners, the media take on it, the whole thing.

    It's a reminder of how far our political culture has fallen.

    At some point, the "my side"/"my enemy" thing became not just an important thing, but the only thing. And that means that, as long as he doesn't annoy or show up the PM, Raab is safe.

    And if you don't think that's the case, Boris Backers, ask yourself this. You may think that the press in the old times had too much power to hunt down and destroy ministers. Fine- it's a view. What's the line where a cabinet minister ought to resign, however reluctantly? What's the line where a PM ought to sack a minister?

    Or is the answer "Don't like it? In that case, you'll have to vote for Starmer in 2024, and you're not going to do that, so jog on"?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 20,898
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
  • rpjs said:

    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
    The Franklin quote is not of course "Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither" as @contrarian puts it but:

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

    The difference in emphasis is very important.
    Its a great quote, but it wasn't even about liberty as we understand it. It was actually about taxes.

    https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    edited September 1

    Don't worry everyone.
    The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
    National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
    National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

    Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

    National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

    Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
    I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
    No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

    Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
    Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

    Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
    No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

    Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
    Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

    He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
    Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
    No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

    Its not paying off the mortage.

    That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
    That is cobblers! The 2008 and ever since, Conservative narrative has been the unaffordability of the DEBT. and the implicit growth of the debt through shortfalls in the deficit. Osborne's austerity narrative was to gradually repay the "credit card" debt down by reducing the deficit. The point was that not only did we need to pay the monthly minimum payment, but we needed room to pay a bit of the debt down each month too. It was a bollocks argument, but voters loved it and understood the maths behind it. Because Boris Big Balls has racked up an eye watering debt (and you would say it's not really a debt anyway we are just printing new money) you are now saying "the DEBT doesn't matter any more, we have no intention of paying it anyway, we just need to keep up with the minimum monthly payments".

    If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,308
    dixiedean said:

    Why would the Taliban, Sunni fundamentalists as they are, be handing weapons over to the Shi'a Satan Iran? They despise them possibly more than the Americans.

    Money.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    dixiedean said:

    FPT. Thanks to @MrEd for the Madchester clip from the US. Been looking for it for some time to show youngest, who has just got into Smiths, Joy Division et al.
    Predictable response though...
    Seen it.

    Remember The Lesson of the Smiths.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    And also why Putin is so keen on it and Salmond has a talk show on Russia Today
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883

    Don't worry everyone.
    The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
    National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
    National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

    Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

    National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

    Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
    I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
    No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

    Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
    Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

    Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
    No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

    Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
    Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

    He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
    Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
    No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

    Its not paying off the mortage.

    That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
    I'd take a 40% mortgage and 3% overdraft over a 100% mortgage and 1% overdraft any day of the week - if we insist on these household finance comparisons.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
  • Tonight's news is really all about Ronaldo's double in the last few minutes to beat ROI 2 - 1

    Utterly amazing and beats the record for international goals
  • Don't worry everyone.
    The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
    National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
    National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

    Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

    National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

    Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
    I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
    No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

    Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
    Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

    Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
    No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

    Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
    Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

    He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
    Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
    No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

    Its not paying off the mortage.

    That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
    That is cobblers! The 2008 and ever since, Conservative narrative has been the unaffordability of the DEBT. and the implicit growth of the debt through shortfalls in the deficit. Osborne's austerity narrative was to gradually repay the "credit card" debt down by reducing the deficit. The point was that not only did we need to pay the monthly minimum payment, but we needed room to pay a bit of the debt down each month too. It was a bollocks argument, but voters loved it and understood the maths behind it. Because Boris Big Balls has racked up an eye watering debt (and you would say it's not really a debt anyway we are just printing new money) you are now saying "the DEBT doesn't matter any more, we have no intention of paying it anyway, we just need to keep up with the minimum monthly payments".

    If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.
    That's complete and utter cobblers. We were never going to pay off the debt. By 2015 the UK debt was £1.5 trillion - Osborne never had any intention of running a budget surplus of £1.5 trillion to pay off the debt.

    Osborne never sought to repay the debt, he sought to stop living off the credit card and to pay our current payments annually without a deficit, not trillions of surplus. And it wasn't a bollocks argument, it was entirely correct.

    We don't need to pay the minimum monthly payments, we need to pay the full amount. Which is eliminating the deficit, eliminating the deficit is paying it off.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    edited September 1
    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    Yes, if we are faced with the same calculus as we were last time, the choice would be the same. Lockdown. But the chance of that sort of malign step change in the virus is low.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    @Dura_Ace is a left-wing anarcho-libertarian misanthrope.

    There's probably not much distance between him and Contrarian to be honest.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 20,898
    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
    Distraught to see that @contrarian thinks he is "detested." He is a much loved member of the great big happy PB family, and since when was "detested" a synonym for "affectionately regarded as a risible dickhead"?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    And also why Putin is so keen on it and Salmond has a talk show on Russia Today
    Oh, the one Tories like appearing on? Like Mr Davis?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 556
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 556
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    Nicola says hi.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    h
    For the record, this didn't even make it to the Supreme Court and it wouldn't have mattered who was on it.

    Alito - whose jurisdiction this is - simply declined to stay the law, and to bring it before the entire SC. It will undoubtedly still make it to the SC, but until then abortion has been criminalized in Texas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 1
    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.
    It is still technically not an attempt to ban abortion outright contrary to Roe v Wade
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    And also I see HYUFD logic:

    Texas takes control against central Federal laws = good.

    Scotland wants to take control against central Westminster laws = bad.

  • HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
  • HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    "6 weeks after pregnancy" is ~2 weeks weeks after a missed period.

    Indeed unless I'm mistaken since the clock starts on your last period, I believe the first couple of weeks "of pregnancy" can be before a couple even has sex that leads to the pregnancy.

    So yes, its effectively banning abortion.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.
    It is still technically not an attempt to ban abortion outright contrary to Roe v Wade
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg3UG9aOo3E
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    And also I see HYUFD logic:

    Texas takes control against central Federal laws = good.

    Scotland wants to take control against central Westminster laws = bad.

    Holyrood makes plenty of its own laws contrary to Westminster, see the recent differences in lockdowns and Sturgeon's new expanded vaccine passports announced.

    However Texas is not seeking to secede from the USA yet as Sturgeon wants Scotland to secede from the UK
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,103
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. Thanks to @MrEd for the Madchester clip from the US. Been looking for it for some time to show youngest, who has just got into Smiths, Joy Division et al.
    Predictable response though...
    Seen it.

    Remember The Lesson of the Smiths.
    An MJ Hibbett reference! Whenever I think pb.com had reached peak polymathory, someone steps up and pushes us on just that bit further. Well done Robert.

    Highlight of this track is the pronunciation epitome as 'epi - tome' to make it fit the rhythm.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 524
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
    The Franklin quote is not of course "Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither" as @contrarian puts it but:

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

    The difference in emphasis is very important.
    Those who give up the right to go to the pub without a mask, to purchase a few extra decades of health & happiness, deserve neither to go to the pub without a mask nor health & happiness.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    And also I see HYUFD logic:

    Texas takes control against central Federal laws = good.

    Scotland wants to take control against central Westminster laws = bad.

    Holyrood makes plenty of its own laws contrary to Westminster, see the recent differences in lockdowns and Sturgeon's new expanded vaccine passports announced.

    However Texas is not seeking to secede from the USA yet as Sturgeon wants Scotland to secede from the UK
    You're muddling things yet again to suit yourself. Go back and read what oyu have written and you'll spot the whacking lack of logic there.

  • HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
    Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    MattW said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
    Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...
    Not necessariuly. Ask the Swiss, Swedes and Finns.
  • darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    And that committed minority will provide their own solution by getting infected sooner or later.

    Want to stop vaxxports ?

    Then infect an antivaxxer today :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    pigeon said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    Nicola says hi.
    Ok but I meant England. I don't have the same feel for things in Scotland.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    edited September 1
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
    Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...
    Not necessariuly. Ask the Swiss, Swedes and Finns.
    None of those are in a position to freeload.

    But the ROI. Hmm. :smile:

    (Defence expenditure: approx 0.25% of GDP)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980
    edited September 1
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    And also why Putin is so keen on it and Salmond has a talk show on Russia Today
    Oh, the one Tories like appearing on? Like Mr Davis?
    And keenest on taking the RT ruble, just like the wider Tory party likes taking any old ruble.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    Half an hour in a sauna with a lunatic? Rather you than me. God.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,964
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    No shit, Sherlock?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    The Pelican Brief to become a reality? Has anyone noticed that Robert Culp who plays the President looks a little like Biden?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    No shit, Sherlock?
    It now has at least a 5-4 conservative majority I would say, so I think the Texas law could be upheld even if the SC heard the case
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980
    MattW said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
    Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...
    Au contraire, making Anglos still overly attached to having a nuclear sock down their trousers realise their true status would save them some money in the end.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,210
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

    What you experienced is not a one off,

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

    Vaccine passports are a bad idea anyway, but backing people in to a corner, and marginalising them is more likely to reduce the number who get vaccinated
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    Trump stole SCOTUS for goodness sake. He didn't apply the rule he claimed in Obama's final year nomination (Garland?) to Coney- Barratt. Don't defend the indefensible!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    edited September 1
    IshmaelZ said:

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    I am a bloke to save you the bother.

    I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

    Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

    I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

    Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

    Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

    Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

    If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

    Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

    All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?
    Distraught to see that @contrarian thinks he is "detested." He is a much loved member of the great big happy PB family, and since when was "detested" a synonym for "affectionately regarded as a risible dickhead"?
    Exactly. And imo the other way is deceptive too. He touts his product but is amazed if he gets any orders.
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.
    It is still technically not an attempt to ban abortion outright contrary to Roe v Wade
    Texas's law is more than a bit weaselly though, isn't it? Even if it's not a ban, it probably makes abortions virtually impossible; indeed that's the point.

    For a start, a six week limit really doesn't give much time to make an enact a decision. Then, there's the whole "state officials can't enforce the act" thing. And assuming that the history here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Texas is accurate, it's hardly the case that the movement in recent decades has been pro-choice.

    And then there's the bigger question. It's probably the case that these laws are popular. Texas splits 55:45 Rep:Dem; not quite the accursed ratio, but a bit close for comfort. But is simple majority support the right way to judge this sort of thing?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 524
    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    Half an hour in a sauna with a lunatic? Rather you than me. God.
    I don't think she was a lunatic, she was just terrified about Covid, in the same way that a lot of people are. She had thought about the situation more than a lot of people - including those on here - who seem to have an irrational and somewhat religious faith in the vaccination programme.

    I told her she should get the vaccine as the evidence is pretty clear that it reduces significantly the risk of hospitalisation and serious illness from COVID. If the goal is to get people vaccinated, this argument is a lot more convincing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    I believe in abortion rights. But I also believe that laws should be set by legislators, not by courts.

    Process matters more than outcomes, and therefore Roe should go.

    That being said, the Supreme Court should have taken this case and should have explicitly overturned RvW, because the Texas law is an absolute constitutional minefield, that will cause America many problems in future.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 556
    BigRich said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

    What you experienced is not a one off,

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

    Vaccine passports are a bad idea anyway, but backing people in to a corner, and marginalising them is more likely to reduce the number who get vaccinated
    The problem being, of course, that the more the stubborn minority dig their heels in, the more likely the widespread use of vaxports becomes.

    Vaccine refusal can only be tolerated with any degree of magnanimity by society so long as the minority is small enough not to cripple the healthcare system and lead to more lockdowns, as increasing numbers of refusers catch Delta, get sick, and present themselves at hospital expecting to be treated.

    I think that the unspoken subtext of the Scottish decision to press ahead with vaxports for entry to certain venues, along with the renewed rumours that the UK Government will do the same in England, is that they want the system in place so that they can use it to start punishing anti-vaxxers and locking them out of society if we have a difficult Winter. Certainly if we see the return of substantial restrictions, which can be pinned on the unvaccinated clogging the hospitals, towards the end of this year then the public demand to ostracise these people is likely to snowball very quickly indeed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    Scots Liberals against vaxports. Hurrah! At last the party is standing up for something.

    https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,210
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    No shit, Sherlock?
    It now has at least a 5-4 conservative majority I would say, so I think the Texas law could be upheld even if the SC heard the case
    This could also be the excuse Biden needs to appoint 2 or 4 more members of the SC, which he might rush to do before the Mid-Term elections if he thinks he can get 100% backing form democratics in the cenit. (though they may need to abolish the Filibuster rules first, I don't know enough about the working but maybe?)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    Lights blue touch paper and stands back, waiting for iSAGE...



    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    4m
    The idea lots of kids suffer from something called "Long Covid" has, from the beginning, been an invented notion, made up in order to deflect from & avoid the hard truth that Covid is overwhelmingly a material threat only to the old & the otherwise vulnerable, not to kids.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    Trump stole SCOTUS for goodness sake. He didn't apply the rule he claimed in Obama's final year nomination (Garland?) to Coney- Barratt. Don't defend the indefensible!
    There is nothing indefensible, Trump nominated conservatives when he could, Obama nominated liberals when he could
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980
    A plan! Mind you, who the feck is expecting the English to be nice?


  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,210

    Scots Liberals against vaxports. Hurrah! At last the party is standing up for something.

    https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566

    do we know how the other party's are leaning on this, I'm guessing Lap are pro, con and green don't know
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    edited September 1
    iSAGE have called an emergency summit on delta and schools for Friday lunchtime.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    BigRich said:

    Scots Liberals against vaxports. Hurrah! At last the party is standing up for something.

    https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566

    do we know how the other party's are leaning on this, I'm guessing Lap are pro, con and green don't know
    AFAIK Green Party England is against.

    Not sure on Scots
  • YokesYokes Posts: 723

    iSAGE have called an emergency summit on delta and schools for Friday lunchtime.

    Independent SAGE are to a large extent a political front.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    What's all this about states' rights? I thought that the whole point of Roe v Wade was that abortion rights were established as applicable, at the federal level and throughout the Union, and not subject to veto by the states? So, frankly, who cares whether or not Texas has a "pro-life" legislature? You'll be arguing that it has the right to call a referendum on independence next...

    The Texan measures constitute an effective total ban. A large proportion of pregnant women aren't even aware of their status in time to take advantage of the six week limit, and in any event the law has declared open season for vexatious law suits by private citizens against abortion practitioners. They'll all be compelled to shut up shop.

    We know where this will end: the way it always does, and the way it always did in the past. Almost no foetuses will be spared by this law, whilst a substantial number of women and girls will suffer and die unnecessarily. It'll just mean abortion tourism to neighbouring jurisdictions for the rich, and desperate acts with kebab skewers and other such implements for the poor. The legislation is so restrictive that it doesn't even contain exemptions for pregnancies started by sexual violence. It effectively defends men's right to procreate by rape.

    It's all more than a little Taliban, just done in the name of a different deity.
    Texan voters favour banning abortion after 6 weeks by 48% to 42% with 68% of Republican voters backing such a law and Republicans control the Texas state legislature as well as the governor's mansion. It is a socially conservative state and if the SC wants to respect its right to implement that social conservatism into law fine

    https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    edited September 1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 67,843

    A plan! Mind you, who the feck is expecting the English to be nice?


    I'm sure it will be incredibly bitter and hostile, and we'll see a lot of people switching their logic on the positions of a leaving side and the former union side from previous debates.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    darkage said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

    Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.
    That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

    But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.
    My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

    Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.
    I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.
    I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

    The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

    Half an hour in a sauna with a lunatic? Rather you than me. God.
    I don't think she was a lunatic, she was just terrified about Covid, in the same way that a lot of people are. She had thought about the situation more than a lot of people - including those on here - who seem to have an irrational and somewhat religious faith in the vaccination programme.

    I told her she should get the vaccine as the evidence is pretty clear that it reduces significantly the risk of hospitalisation and serious illness from COVID. If the goal is to get people vaccinated, this argument is a lot more convincing.
    Well that argument is being made and keeps being made. I don't support 'vaxports' either but I'd have thought on balance the threat of them would lead to more vaccination. And I am pretty sure that's all it is. We aren't going to be seeing this mandated or otherwise taking off in England.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743

    Don't worry everyone.
    The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
    National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
    National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

    Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

    National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

    Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
    I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
    No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

    Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
    Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

    Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
    No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

    Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
    Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

    He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
    Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
    No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

    Its not paying off the mortage.

    That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
    That is cobblers! The 2008 and ever since, Conservative narrative has been the unaffordability of the DEBT. and the implicit growth of the debt through shortfalls in the deficit. Osborne's austerity narrative was to gradually repay the "credit card" debt down by reducing the deficit. The point was that not only did we need to pay the monthly minimum payment, but we needed room to pay a bit of the debt down each month too. It was a bollocks argument, but voters loved it and understood the maths behind it. Because Boris Big Balls has racked up an eye watering debt (and you would say it's not really a debt anyway we are just printing new money) you are now saying "the DEBT doesn't matter any more, we have no intention of paying it anyway, we just need to keep up with the minimum monthly payments".

    If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.
    That's complete and utter cobblers. We were never going to pay off the debt. By 2015 the UK debt was £1.5 trillion - Osborne never had any intention of running a budget surplus of £1.5 trillion to pay off the debt.

    Osborne never sought to repay the debt, he sought to stop living off the credit card and to pay our current payments annually without a deficit, not trillions of surplus. And it wasn't a bollocks argument, it was entirely correct.

    We don't need to pay the minimum monthly payments, we need to pay the full amount. Which is eliminating the deficit, eliminating the deficit is paying it off.
    Your argument is tangential to mine!

    Nobody mentioned the "mortgage". The term used by Conservatives as a political weapon to cleverly undermine Brown and Darling was "we have maxed out the nation's credit card and we need to pay it down". The narrative was simplistic nonsense, but the voters thought they understood what was meant, and bought into it.

    You are wibbling on about about the difference between the debt and the deficit. My point wasn't about any economic argument, and you are right I am ignorant, because you've totally lost me now, it was Osborne's rather clever use of a political device, vis a vis, the nation's imaginary credit card.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983

    A plan! Mind you, who the feck is expecting the English to be nice?


    The English aren’t the ones who want to end the Treaty of Union and all that came with it.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 723
    On the US kit left in Afghanistan, neither it nor the captured Afghan armed forces equipment is in itself significant from a power perspective. As an assistance to mobility and fighting a counter insurgency its quite handy becauses thats essentially what the Afghan military was equipped to do.
  • Yokes said:

    On the US kit left in Afghanistan, neither it nor the captured Afghan armed forces equipment is in itself significant from a power perspective. As an assistance to mobility and fighting a counter insurgency its quite handy becauses thats essentially what the Afghan military was equipped to do.

    I always chuckle when I see the number of Mil Mi-8 helicopters shown in the recent footage of "US kit left behind" :lol:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    edited September 1
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

    https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

    If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

    Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
    Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.
    More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

    Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

    PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.
    After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction
    Trump stole SCOTUS for goodness sake. He didn't apply the rule he claimed in Obama's final year nomination (Garland?) to Coney- Barratt. Don't defend the indefensible!
    There is nothing indefensible, Trump nominated conservatives when he could, Obama nominated liberals when he could
    Yeah, and Obama's nom was rejected by the GOP as they said it was too close to the election. Trump's was not.
This discussion has been closed.