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.
Yes and the GOP had a Senate majority at the time, so their choice
But their argument for doing so was a spurious one when 4 years later they pushed Coney- Barrett through.
I know you love Trump and the GOP almost as much as you do Johnson, but you really need to understand they are a bunch of duplicitous, conniving b******s, irrespective of Mr Biden's mental capacity!
That's politics. 🤷♂️
Now the Democrats have control of the Senate and the White House. They could easily nominate 2 new Justices and ram them through the Senate on a 50/50 vote with the Veep casting the final vote. There is literally nothing stopping them from doing that.
Except they're not. They're choosing not to. So I have ran out of sympathy for their complaints. They have a solution and they're not doing it.
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.
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.
And that’s exactly the problem with them. It encourages the “othering” of a minority in society
I disagree Charles. Vaxports are an incentive for the lazy, the indifferent and the dilatory to get themselves vaccinated. It won't, of course, work on the likes of @Dura_Ace who have principled reasons not to take the vaccination. By reducing further the percentage of the population who are not vaccinated we reduce the number of serious illnesses and the pressure on our health system. That may prove to be essential if the trends we are seeing in Scotland come to England once your schools return.
In the meantime we should be vaccinating children, really quite urgently and for the same reasons. We need to look at whether boosters are of sufficient efficacy that sectors of our population need them now. We are all likely to need them in the future. We should also have masks to reduce the spread on public transport, in public buildings and in tertiary educational establishments. We need to work hard to improve ventilation in these places too. These are the price of living with this disease and that is what we have to learn to do.
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.
We did need to pay down the nation's credit card.
The nation's credit card is the deficit.
You're the one trying to pretend the debt is the credit card. It was always the deficit.
Aahhgg!! F****** ***l!!!
The deficit is the extra spending each month. The debt is the credit card balance.
Why are people trying to make a distinction?
A credit card is the exact equivalent to an overdraft. It’s just a simple mechanism for accessing an unsecured loan from your friendly local banker.
I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...
1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective. 2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year. 3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.
I think you’re nuts, but it’s a nuts I respect.
More than @contrarian (and I'm talking specifically about not getting vaccinated)?
Calls to poison control centres about human use of the horse wormer invermectin in the US have reached “five times the normal rate”, American sources report.
Only the US could have a ‘normal rate’ in the first place.
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.
Yes and the GOP had a Senate majority at the time, so their choice
But their argument for doing so was a spurious one when 4 years later they pushed Coney- Barrett through.
I know you love Trump and the GOP almost as much as you do Johnson, but you really need to understand they are a bunch of duplicitous, conniving b******s, irrespective of Mr Biden's mental capacity!
That's politics. 🤷♂️
Now the Democrats have control of the Senate and the White House. They could easily nominate 2 new Justices and ram them through the Senate on a 50/50 vote with the Veep casting the final vote. There is literally nothing stopping them from doing that.
Except they're not. They're choosing not to. So I have ran out of sympathy for their complaints. They have a solution and they're not doing it.
Because the argument would be, it is unconstitutional so to do. I can understand that argument, but for once I don't disagree with you.
There is zero in the constitution about the size of the SCOTUS. It's court size has been changed several times.
Indeed, but wouldn't Trump Republican's cry foul, and add there own handful next time, so the whole affair gets ludicrously out of hand?
The question is whether the Trump Republicans could ever get control of both chambers of Congress and and Presidency again if the Democrats added extra justices and banned gerrymandering, corporate donations, and voter suppression. I think in a genuinely democratic system, the current breed of the Republican Party would be screwed.
The other option is to pass a law expand the court to 15 justices and then offer the Republicans a constitutional amendment to cap it at 11.
Trump won the EC in 2016 by more than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988, he lost 3 key swing states in 2020 by less than 1% so that would be a bit complacent.
Plus if Democrats pack the court with liberal justices when they are in power, Republicans could pack the court with conservative judges when they are in power
That's what I said, and Aslan has put us both right, if only you had read his post.
He hasn't because he wrongly assumes there is no current pathway to a majority for the current GOP, Trump did not win the EC in 2016 because of gerrymandering or voter suppression.
The GOP also won landslides in the 2010 and 2014 midterms fair and square
Of course, since 1992, the Republicans have only won the popular Presidential vote... what... once?
After the Soviets exploded their first A-bomb in 1949, the Republicans lost just one election in the next 40 years by more than 2.5% of the popular vote - 1964.
Since the collapse of the USSR, they haven’t won the popular vote in a single election by more than 2.5%, and they have topped the popular vote precisely once - in 2004.
Cause and effect? Well, maybe not, but it’s rather a striking statistic.
Not just the UK that had difficulty extracting Afghans:
WASHINGTON — A senior State Department official said Wednesday that it appeared a “majority” of Afghans who had worked for the U.S. military and applied for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) had not been successfully evacuated and remained in Afghanistan.
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
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
If the SNP got 100% of the *vote* that would be a compelling argument for a referendum
Setting the bar low there. 😉
That was the point made.
Basically Holyrood doesn’t have a legal right to hold a referendum. They need to convince Westminster.
It’s just a judgement as to what will be sufficient to convince Westminster. 50.1% isn’t enough. 100% is more than enough. The answer is somewhere in the middle…
I don’t quite understand why people are getting so het up about a simple point
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.
Yes and the GOP had a Senate majority at the time, so their choice
But their argument for doing so was a spurious one when 4 years later they pushed Coney- Barrett through.
I know you love Trump and the GOP almost as much as you do Johnson, but you really need to understand they are a bunch of duplicitous, conniving b******s, irrespective of Mr Biden's mental capacity!
That's politics. 🤷♂️
Now the Democrats have control of the Senate and the White House. They could easily nominate 2 new Justices and ram them through the Senate on a 50/50 vote with the Veep casting the final vote. There is literally nothing stopping them from doing that.
Except they're not. They're choosing not to. So I have ran out of sympathy for their complaints. They have a solution and they're not doing it.
It’s not a cost free solution
On this we agree. Increasing the number of Justices is not the answer. The real problem, for the reasons @rcs1000 has pointed out, is that the court has far too much power in the first place and is able to make laws which are undemocratic. People need to be careful about how much power they give to lawyers and judges. Jonathon Sumption was right to warn about that here. Under the US system they are simply unaccountable for their decisions. It is a major flaw in the US system but further politicising the institution by increasing the number of Justices is not the solution.
I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...
1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective. 2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year. 3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.
I think you’re nuts, but it’s a nuts I respect.
More than @contrarian (and I'm talking specifically about not getting vaccinated)?
I think he's talking bollocks. This is a guy that refused to fill out the census.
It's a basic rejection of state authority and a desire for anarchy, also reflected in his driving style and desire for a culture war.
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.
We did need to pay down the nation's credit card.
The nation's credit card is the deficit.
You're the one trying to pretend the debt is the credit card. It was always the deficit.
Aahhgg!! F****** ***l!!!
The deficit is the extra spending each month. The debt is the credit card balance.
Why are people trying to make a distinction?
A credit card is the exact equivalent to an overdraft. It’s just a simple mechanism for accessing an unsecured loan from your friendly local banker.
An overdraft is repayable on demand. On a credit card afaik you have the contractual right to keep it running till you die if you keep up the min payments.
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.
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.
And that’s exactly the problem with them. It encourages the “othering” of a minority in society
I disagree Charles. Vaxports are an incentive for the lazy, the indifferent and the dilatory to get themselves vaccinated. It won't, of course, work on the likes of @Dura_Ace who have principled reasons not to take the vaccination. By reducing further the percentage of the population who are not vaccinated we reduce the number of serious illnesses and the pressure on our health system. That may prove to be essential if the trends we are seeing in Scotland come to England once your schools return.
In the meantime we should be vaccinating children, really quite urgently and for the same reasons. We need to look at whether boosters are of sufficient efficacy that sectors of our population need them now. We are all likely to need them in the future. We should also have masks to reduce the spread on public transport, in public buildings and in tertiary educational establishments. We need to work hard to improve ventilation in these places too. These are the price of living with this disease and that is what we have to learn to do.
Clinical staff in Scotland have come up with a new public health methodology.
‘There is a clear and compelling case for permanently fastening John Swinney and Humza Yousaf inside masks, using surgical sutures,’ said a spokeswoman today.
‘We estimate this will reduce the amount of bullshit in the Scottish executive by approximately 96%, with the added benefit of reducing global warming emissions by up to 350,000 tonnes of methane and carbon dioxide a year.’
She dismissed speculation this could be extended to Gavin Williamson, Dominic Raab and Priti Patel.
‘That would be a matter for PHE and I wouldn’t want to comment, except to say the bastards always nick our brilliant ideas and pass them off as their own.’
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.
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.
And that’s exactly the problem with them. It encourages the “othering” of a minority in society
I disagree Charles. Vaxports are an incentive for the lazy, the indifferent and the dilatory to get themselves vaccinated. It won't, of course, work on the likes of @Dura_Ace who have principled reasons not to take the vaccination. By reducing further the percentage of the population who are not vaccinated we reduce the number of serious illnesses and the pressure on our health system. That may prove to be essential if the trends we are seeing in Scotland come to England once your schools return.
In the meantime we should be vaccinating children, really quite urgently and for the same reasons. We need to look at whether boosters are of sufficient efficacy that sectors of our population need them now. We are all likely to need them in the future. We should also have masks to reduce the spread on public transport, in public buildings and in tertiary educational establishments. We need to work hard to improve ventilation in these places too. These are the price of living with this disease and that is what we have to learn to do.
Clinical staff in Scotland have come up with a new public health methodology.
‘There is a clear and compelling case for permanently fastening John Swinney and Humza Yousaf inside masks, using surgical sutures,’ said a spokeswoman today.
‘We estimate this will reduce the amount of bullshit in the Scottish executive by approximately 96%, with the added benefit of reducing global warming emissions by up to 350,000 tonnes of methane and carbon dioxide a year.’
She dismissed speculation this could be extended to Gavin Williamson, Dominic Raab and Priti Patel.
‘That would be a matter for PHE and I wouldn’t want to comment, except to say the bastards always nick our brilliant ideas and pass them off as their own.’
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
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.
Marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Brexit but not an overwhelming level of support. Not easy to dismiss.
English majority = respected Scottish majority = not respected
Would the English put up with being second-class citizens? So why should Scots?
Brexit was a case where politicians asked a question and got an answer. So the answer should be respected
For indyref2 the status quo is that it is up to Westminster and the government has made clear they won’t. So you need to come up with an argument to change their mind.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think 50.1% is a very strong argument.
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.
Yes and the GOP had a Senate majority at the time, so their choice
Indeed and the Democrats have a majority now and the Presidency, so they really ought to be nominating more Justices to even up the scales.
The fact they haven't, is their own damned fault.
They are right not to.
There have been no vacancies. What they could do is see if they can pressure anyone to resign to create spaces while they have effective control of the Senate*
Increasing the number of Justices would be entirely different and would permanently politicise the institution
* I don’t know if there are different things like majorities in specific committees that could change the calculations
How is the size of the Supreme Court currently set?
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.
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.
And that’s exactly the problem with them. It encourages the “othering” of a minority in society
If everyone spends months in lockdown because of said minority then they're going to get pretty comprehensively "othered" regardless.
It won’t stick though. “Show me your papers to prove you are not a dirty other” is an uncomfortable concept
Calls to poison control centres about human use of the horse wormer invermectin in the US have reached “five times the normal rate”, American sources report.
Only the US could have a ‘normal rate’ in the first place.
Of course you have a normal rate. Drench formulations of ivermectin have splash back. Injectable versions can result in stick injuries.
But I have to go soon. Speaking to the CEO of one of the major ivermectin manufacturers at 8…
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.
We did need to pay down the nation's credit card.
The nation's credit card is the deficit.
You're the one trying to pretend the debt is the credit card. It was always the deficit.
Aahhgg!! F****** ***l!!!
The deficit is the extra spending each month. The debt is the credit card balance.
Why are people trying to make a distinction?
A credit card is the exact equivalent to an overdraft. It’s just a simple mechanism for accessing an unsecured loan from your friendly local banker.
An overdraft is repayable on demand. On a credit card afaik you have the contractual right to keep it running till you die if you keep up the min payments.
In theory yes (at least until expiry). In practice the card can be cancelled.
One striking thing about government responses is how hard they seem to find it to change direction once they start doing something in a particular way. There was a time when there wasn't enough supply of surgical masks but masks as a class of thing definitely seemed to help so people recommended the cloth ones. Now the makers have had time to ramp up production and surgical masks are available everywhere but we already decided cloth masks are cool so that's that.
Declaration of interest: I have Unicharm stock 🚀🚀🚀
Not only that but people will cast scorn on those of us who won't wear cloth masks anymore, as we're double-vaccinated and its bloody pointless and uncomfortable, as being "selfish" or other nonsense. Quite a discussion with that kind of attitude coming through from a few people earlier today.
Its not only the government response but the public one too. Some people have latched on to masks like a toddler latches on to a favourite teddy or a comfort blanket.
Time to get over this irrational nonsense. Let people continue to wear futile cloth masks if they want to do so, but we should educate them that if they want benefits from a mask it should be a surgical FFP3 etc one - and that there's no point in expecting others to wear masks on their behalf anymore.
This research isn't about the FFP3 ones IIUC, they're getting decent results from normal cheap disposable surgical masks, which are comfortable to wear and available cheaply from many excellent manufacturers such as Unicharm. Kind of seems like a dick move not to wear them around other people since there's still a pandemic and they seem to be moderately helpful to yourself and other people at pretty much no cost to the wearer.
Its a dick move to expect others to wear face masks when they're pretty useless and we're post-vaccinations.
Wear one if you want, but don't expect others to do so. Especially if you can't be arsed to wear an FFP3 one.
I didn't mean to tread on a flogging-a-dead-horse culture war thing which I don't suppose will make any progress but I don't know where you're getting this "they're pretty useless" idea from.
That study says that cloth masks have 0% efficacy. That's "pretty useless".
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.
(Defence expenditure: approx 0.25% of GDP)
The RoI are not freeloaders. The only country that has invaded them in the last millennium is us, and they won that one.
NATO is an obsolete cold war relic and should have been dissolved decades ago.
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.
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.
And rightly so. Vaccine refusers are preventing a return to normal service in the NHS.
One striking thing about government responses is how hard they seem to find it to change direction once they start doing something in a particular way. There was a time when there wasn't enough supply of surgical masks but masks as a class of thing definitely seemed to help so people recommended the cloth ones. Now the makers have had time to ramp up production and surgical masks are available everywhere but we already decided cloth masks are cool so that's that.
Declaration of interest: I have Unicharm stock 🚀🚀🚀
Not only that but people will cast scorn on those of us who won't wear cloth masks anymore, as we're double-vaccinated and its bloody pointless and uncomfortable, as being "selfish" or other nonsense. Quite a discussion with that kind of attitude coming through from a few people earlier today.
Its not only the government response but the public one too. Some people have latched on to masks like a toddler latches on to a favourite teddy or a comfort blanket.
Time to get over this irrational nonsense. Let people continue to wear futile cloth masks if they want to do so, but we should educate them that if they want benefits from a mask it should be a surgical FFP3 etc one - and that there's no point in expecting others to wear masks on their behalf anymore.
This research isn't about the FFP3 ones IIUC, they're getting decent results from normal cheap disposable surgical masks, which are comfortable to wear and available cheaply from many excellent manufacturers such as Unicharm. Kind of seems like a dick move not to wear them around other people since there's still a pandemic and they seem to be moderately helpful to yourself and other people at pretty much no cost to the wearer.
Its a dick move to expect others to wear face masks when they're pretty useless and we're post-vaccinations.
Wear one if you want, but don't expect others to do so. Especially if you can't be arsed to wear an FFP3 one.
I didn't mean to tread on a flogging-a-dead-horse culture war thing which I don't suppose will make any progress but I don't know where you're getting this "they're pretty useless" idea from.
That study says that cloth masks have 0% efficacy. That's "pretty useless".
No, one of the commenters says 'dore it show that' cloth masks are 0% effective. And the author replies and says that they're less effective than surgical, but still have an effect. Stopping reading at the bit that supports your pre-existing view is not a good strategy
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.
Devonport is too shallow.
The T boats and the Swiftsures before them were based at Devonport so the harbour could be made to work. What the Armchair Admirals are missing is the relevance of RNAD Coulport which is adjacent to Faslane. This the where the weapons are stored and the boats armed. It's impossible to build such a secure and isolated facility at Devonport unless they demolish half of Plymouth. (Possible tick in the pro column.)
The destination of the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts depends on who is government at the time. A Lab/SNP/LD coalition of the unthrilling would probably put them into Île Longue. This wouldn't be possible for a tory government who would not be able to weather the Daily Mail/Telegraph stink over English/Welsh submarines being based in France so they'd go for Kings Bay.
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.
Devonport is too shallow.
The T boats and the Swiftsures before them were based at Devonport so the harbour could be made to work. What the Armchair Admirals are missing is the relevance of RNAD Coulport which is adjacent to Faslane. This the where the weapons are stored and the boats armed. It's impossible to build such a secure and isolated facility at Devonport unless they demolish half of Plymouth. (Possible tick in the pro column.)
The destination of the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts depends on who is government at the time. A Lab/SNP/LD coalition of the unthrilling would probably put them into Île Longue. This wouldn't be possible for a tory government who would not be able to weather the Daily Mail/Telegraph stink over English/Welsh submarines being based in France so they'd go for Kings Bay.
In my experience, knowledge of the UK’s “independent” (ho ho) nuclear deterrent is woeful. The biggest black hole is how dependent the whole system is on the US, but closely followed by Coulport.
Comments
In the meantime we should be vaccinating children, really quite urgently and for the same reasons. We need to look at whether boosters are of sufficient efficacy that sectors of our population need them now. We are all likely to need them in the future. We should also have masks to reduce the spread on public transport, in public buildings and in tertiary educational establishments. We need to work hard to improve ventilation in these places too. These are the price of living with this disease and that is what we have to learn to do.
A credit card is the exact equivalent to an overdraft. It’s just a simple mechanism for accessing an unsecured loan from your friendly local banker.
Only the US could have a ‘normal rate’ in the first place.
Since the collapse of the USSR, they haven’t won the popular vote in a single election by more than 2.5%, and they have topped the popular vote precisely once - in 2004.
Cause and effect? Well, maybe not, but it’s rather a striking statistic.
WASHINGTON — A senior State Department official said Wednesday that it appeared a “majority” of Afghans who had worked for the U.S. military and applied for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) had not been successfully evacuated and remained in Afghanistan.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/afghanistan-sivs-left-behind-state-dept-508327
Basically Holyrood doesn’t have a legal right to hold a referendum. They need to convince Westminster.
It’s just a judgement as to what will be sufficient to convince Westminster. 50.1% isn’t enough. 100% is more than enough. The answer is somewhere in the middle…
I don’t quite understand why people are getting so het up about a simple point
It's a basic rejection of state authority and a desire for anarchy, also reflected in his driving style and desire for a culture war.
‘There is a clear and compelling case for permanently fastening John Swinney and Humza Yousaf inside masks, using surgical sutures,’ said a spokeswoman today.
‘We estimate this will reduce the amount of bullshit in the Scottish executive by approximately 96%, with the added benefit of reducing global warming emissions by up to 350,000 tonnes of methane and carbon dioxide a year.’
She dismissed speculation this could be extended to Gavin Williamson, Dominic Raab and Priti Patel.
‘That would be a matter for PHE and I wouldn’t want to comment, except to say the bastards always nick our brilliant ideas and pass them off as their own.’
Looking around for something apart from sport to be cheerful about. Women's cricket last night was good.
https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1433310378050654213?s=20
For indyref2 the status quo is that it is up to Westminster and the government has made clear they won’t. So you need to come up with an argument to change their mind.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think 50.1% is a very strong argument.
NEW THREAD
But I have to go soon. Speaking to the CEO of one of the major ivermectin manufacturers at 8…
NATO is an obsolete cold war relic and should have been dissolved decades ago.
Stopping reading at the bit that supports your pre-existing view is not a good strategy
The destination of the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts depends on who is government at the time. A Lab/SNP/LD coalition of the unthrilling would probably put them into Île Longue. This wouldn't be possible for a tory government who would not be able to weather the Daily Mail/Telegraph stink over English/Welsh submarines being based in France so they'd go for Kings Bay.
No Coulport = no Faslane = no nukes