Categories
Raab puts the pathetic in apathetic, which might save him – politicalbetting.com
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?
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 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.
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.
Here's a couple of threads on it
https://twitter.com/JJSchroden/status/1432144278432718857
and
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1432332226935590917
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?
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
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
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1433031883978383364?s=20
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.
Predictable response though...
Seen it.
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!
"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.
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.
That first thread would be a helluva lot better without all those f*cking annoying gifs!
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"?
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.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
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.
If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.
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.
Utterly amazing and beats the record for international goals
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.
There's probably not much distance between him and Contrarian to be honest.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19
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.
Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
Texas takes control against central Federal laws = good.
Scotland wants to take control against central Westminster laws = bad.
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.
However Texas is not seeking to secede from the USA yet as Sturgeon wants Scotland to secede from the UK
Highlight of this track is the pronunciation epitome as 'epi - tome' to make it fit the rhythm.
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.
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.
Want to stop vaxxports ?
Then infect an antivaxxer today
But the ROI. Hmm.
(Defence expenditure: approx 0.25% of GDP)
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566
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.
Not sure on Scots
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZSJ3QMBeR/
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.