politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The efforts to undermine Obamacare – the soft underbelly of Tr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The efforts to undermine Obamacare – the soft underbelly of Trump’s electoral position
On the first anniversary of the Senate defeat of Trump’s health care repeal,and just three months before the crucial midterm elections, a new Public Policy Polling survey finds a majority of voters want to support candidates for Congress who oppose repealing the Affordable Care Act. This was brought in under Obama in 2010 and has provided health provision for millions of Americans.
Comments
-
First0
-
Isn't that inaccurate?
I thought every party was in favour of a new national health service, they just differed on the specifics.0 -
-
The problem (politically) for the Democrats is that they, and a few moderate republicans, have saved Trump from himself.
There was a very interesting series of interviews by Sarah Kliffe on this very topic in Kentucky.
Basically Trump voters did not believe him when he said he would repeal the law.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
0 -
If I was a woman I'd want money to have sex with Trump. He must be the ugliest bastard in the Western Hemisphere.Scott_P said:0 -
I think the Democrats will win the house and have bet accordingly.
O/T The rape field behind our house is being combine harvested right now.-1 -
-
How gullible are Trump voters? Couldn't he just say that if Obama hadn't created Obamacare in the first place he, Trump, couldn't now remove it, so it's all Obama's fault?0
-
Of course, and when Labour vote against the Brexit deal will you castigate them for opposing Brexit in its entirety, or accept that they are just differing on the specifics?Morris_Dancer said:Isn't that inaccurate?
I thought every party was in favour of a new national health service, they just differed on the specifics.0 -
From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
fPT:
MTimT said:
» show previous quotes
This conversation reminds me of the LA Speed Check story. For those of you who have never heard it, well worth the five minutes:
https://twistedsifter.com/videos/an-sr-71-blackbird-pilot-recounts-his-infamous-la-speed-check-story/
Thanks for that - that guy can tell a story! A master class for dialogue coaches....0 -
-
I'm in favour of reviewing laws every 750 years or so, just to check they're up to date. Not very Conservative though.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.0
-
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
Given their very cursory understanding of it - in particular the things it doesn’t solve - all that tells us is that they are desperate and realise that there’s an increasing chance Brexit won’t happen.RobC said:Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.
0 -
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
When the ERG told Theresa May she needed more spunk......Scott_P said:0 -
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.Theuniondivvie said:
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
To be fair to Trump, much of the Republican establishment are even more opposed to Obamacare than he is.0
-
Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
0 -
Yes I thought that too although personally as a Remainer that is fed up with the tedious trench warfare between the opposing sides I can live with it as it keeps us in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Given their very cursory understanding of it - in particular the things it doesn’t solve - all that tells us is that they are desperate and realise that there’s an increasing chance Brexit won’t happen.RobC said:Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.
0 -
Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.Sean_F said:
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.Theuniondivvie said:
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
https://twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/10220137541989580800 -
Yes, but I don't think that's in any way personal. It's just because he is mad.Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
-
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
In what way a travesty? He himself admitted his main defence was based on a lie.Theuniondivvie said:
Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.Sean_F said:
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.Theuniondivvie said:
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
There were some controversies around Nuremberg as well of course, particularly over Hess and some of the military officers - I seem to remember Airey Neave believed Jodl would have been acquitted or at least, not executed had the trials been held a year later. He also criticised the judges for executing Sauckel while imprisoning Speer (who was ultimately in charge of the forced labour programme).0 -
And the other three-quarters? Just curious.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
Isn't all Islamic terrorism "far-right" extremism ?AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
No. But neither did I take extreme umbridge.Theuniondivvie said:
Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
I kept my sense of perspective.0 -
Umbridge, a place for grumpy Archers listeners.MarqueeMark said:
No. But neither did I take extreme umbridge.Theuniondivvie said:
Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
I kept my sense of perspective.0 -
Theuniondivvie said:
Umbridge, a place for grumpy Archers listeners.
0 -
Under Corbyn the tweeter would be arrested for taking the job of caring for the poor away from unionised public sector workers.rottenborough said:Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
https://twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/1022013754198958080
0 -
Just About Managing, as a wise woman once described it. I'm not really sure why this tale is all over twitter. Did the twitterer ever give her any of the money from the car or under the telly, or just talk a lot about his virtue?rottenborough said:Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/1022013754198958080
0 -
Being harsh he paid her less than minimum wage to look after his kids for the summer. He didn’t have to and it no doubt helped her a lot in a very harsh and difficult situation. I thought it was commendable.DecrepitJohnL said:
Just About Managing, as a wise woman once said. I'm not really sure why this tale is all over twitter. Did the twitterer ever give her any of the money from the car or under the telly, or just talk a lot about his virtue?rottenborough said:Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/10220137541989580800 -
The author on the other hand...rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.0 -
You are still good at making shit up.TGOHF said:
Under Corbyn the tweeter would be arrested for taking the job of caring for the poor away from unionised public sector workers.rottenborough said:Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
https://twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/1022013754198958080
0 -
Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...0 -
Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.0 -
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?Foxy said:On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?0 -
That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.
This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).0 -
Strangely the only people proposing that claim to be members of Britain's major unionist party i.e. The Conservatives.MikeSmithson said:
Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.0 -
The only “terrorist” related death in the U.K. I can think of in this year was apparently caused by bumbling Russian poisoners. Have I forgotten more?JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...0 -
Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.0 -
Surely, 'risk an explosion?'MikeSmithson said:
Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.
And if anyone hands me my coat in this heat, there will be an extreme terrorist incident involving cattle prods.0 -
No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.OblitusSumMe said:
That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.
This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).0 -
We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.0 -
Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:
https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/1022054723237699584
0 -
Don't laugh. We might be doing that ourselves in 9 months.rottenborough said:Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:
https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/10220547232376995840 -
Sadly, there was one in NI earlier in the year that was probably terrorist-related:DavidL said:
The only “terrorist” related death in the U.K. I can think of in this year was apparently caused by bumbling Russian poisoners. Have I forgotten more?JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/02/15/news/eye-witness-says-murder-scene-was-a-bloodbath-1256176/0 -
Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.ydoethur said:
We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.0 -
Well, that's 'cake and eat it', which we all know (and so will Starmer) we ain't gonna get. Looks like Labour intends to create a pincer movement with the ERG to destroy Theresa's premiership when the time is right.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.0 -
Well, he is a lawyer. If he can't come up with bullshit that sounds plausible, who can?grabcocque said:
Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.ydoethur said:
We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
I note as well he can count up to six, which means unlike the Treasury in the heady days of 1997 he doesn't rely on his fingers.0 -
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0 -
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.0 -
The point is the free movement of people. WIthout that, we would be close to signing up to everything else.ydoethur said:
Don't laugh. We might be doing that ourselves in 9 months.rottenborough said:Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:
https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/10220547232376995840 -
I suppose I'm interested in what the 103 incidents in 2014 were that amounted to only 4 injuries.JosiasJessop said:
No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.OblitusSumMe said:
That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.
This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).
If it's not people counting incidents differently, is it the police intercepting people at an earlier stage than they were able to in the 80s and 90s (and a raid that breaks up a plot being counted as an incident)? An example might be that person they picked up in Whitehall with the knives who they had been watching.0 -
This is like Brown's various "tests" for stuff.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:Sean_F said:
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-190093440 -
Much the same way as Gordon Brown's Euro tests. It makes it seem like you're taking a reasoned stance free from 'politics', but in reality it just gives cover to 'do what we want, when we want it'.grabcocque said:
Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.ydoethur said:
We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.0 -
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.Cyclefree said:
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.0 -
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
0 -
But there's no risk of that given that (a) it's the summer recess and (b) all the really aggressive interviewers - Paxman, Humphreys, Neil - have ben shunted sideways or retired.Cyclefree said:
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).ydoethur said:
Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:Sean_F said:
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
0 -
Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.grabcocque said:
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.Cyclefree said:
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.0 -
It wasn't just the IRA. Back in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's European far right and far left terrorists were simply much more effective than their modern counterparts.OblitusSumMe said:
I suppose I'm interested in what the 103 incidents in 2014 were that amounted to only 4 injuries.JosiasJessop said:
No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.OblitusSumMe said:
That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.JosiasJessop said:Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom
For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).
The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.
This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).
If it's not people counting incidents differently, is it the police intercepting people at an earlier stage than they were able to in the 80s and 90s (and a raid that breaks up a plot being counted as an incident)? An example might be that person they picked up in Whitehall with the knives who they had been watching.0 -
Indeed. Labour just have to reject it on some feigned objections and then sit back and watch the ERG do the rest.grabcocque said:
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.Cyclefree said:
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.0 -
It does however make Labour look hopelessly split, and raises the risk of No Deal.grabcocque said:
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.Cyclefree said:
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.
Or to put it another way, if Labour are serious about these six tests, which anyone with half a brain can see are simply not plausible, they will have to vote for No Deal give that is the alternative.0 -
A solicitor friend of mine said that the police are stupid, sometimes because they genuinely are stupid as individuals, and often enforced stupidity because of the rules they have to work under. However they do a reasonable job as the criminals are almost always more stupid.Sean_F said:
Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).ydoethur said:
Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:Sean_F said:
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
According to him, the problems occur when clever criminals come into existence.0 -
I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.Cyclefree said:
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
Fortunately, most criminals are not clever. And those that are are more likely to carry out white collar crime, rather than violent crime.JosiasJessop said:
A solicitor friend of mine said that the police are stupid, sometimes because they genuinely are stupid as individuals, and often enforced stupidity because of the rules they have to work under. However they do a reasonable job as the criminals are almost always more stupid.Sean_F said:
Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).ydoethur said:
Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:Sean_F said:
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
According to him, the problems occur when clever criminals come into existence.0 -
I don't think the second one meets 3. The only way we can have a deal that meets all of them is Remain PLUS an end to FOM. Which is about as likely as Martin Selmayr admitting his grandfather was responsible for those massacres in Yugoslavia.grabcocque said:
I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.Cyclefree said:
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.grabcocque said:
I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.Cyclefree said:
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.0 -
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.0 -
Probably, although since Starmer doesn't define "fair" migration he gives himself an out.Sean_F said:
Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.0 -
Priorities, priorities. Labour want to destroy the Tories first. They can then have a pleasant old chinwag about where to take us with Brexit when they've seized the levers of power.Cyclefree said:
Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.grabcocque said:
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.Cyclefree said:
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.0 -
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.DavidL said:
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?Foxy said:On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
0 -
Corbyn has made remarks on the subject however:grabcocque said:
Probably, although since Starmer doesn't define "fair" migration he gives himself an out.Sean_F said:
Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-nigel-farage-scottish-labour-foreign-worker-attack-kezia-dugdale-a8249691.html0 -
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?Foxy said:
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.DavidL said:
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?Foxy said:On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.0 -
I always get grief from Leavers for highlighting Hannan's claim 'nobody is suggesting we will leave the Single Market.' They claim it was taken out of context. (Since it was a simple, and wrong, statement of fact I'm not sure context is relevant.)AlastairMeeks said:
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
However, it is a little worrying if an opposition that may be jockeying for power has no clue what to do with it once it gets there, apart from a load of uncosted ideas on spending and some oxymoronic platitudes on foreign affairs, don't you think?0 -
Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.AlastairMeeks said:
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.0 -
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.MaxPB said:
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?Foxy said:
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.DavidL said:
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?Foxy said:On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.0 -
Thanks. When this becomes a tax on the sick the stupid American law that bans Medicare from negotiating with suppliers becomes truly wicked. It is a licence for abuse.Foxy said:
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.DavidL said:
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?Foxy said:On Topic!
Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/DoreenRudolph3/status/1020637950328098821?s=19
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.0 -
The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?0
-
7. Does it include unicorns farting electricity out of their backsides ?grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?0 -
As you say, though, nailing the Tories is, has to be, priority 1.Stark_Dawning said:The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
Obviously if economic chaos can be avoided that's great, but Labour are not going to not cause chaos if they have a chance to bring down the government.0 -
Leavers were clear that people’s rights would be determined by their directly elected Parliament , not Brussels. They were clear that FoM would end. They were clear that payments from the EU would end and that it would be up to the U.K. what replaced them. Whether these are advantages or disadvantages perhaps depends on your individual perspective.AlastairMeeks said:
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years. I fear that this has been driven by weakness, ineptitude and a lack of decisiveness but just maybe May has a cunning plan. We had all better hope so.0 -
If the Defendant were facing imprisonment, rather than execution, I think there's a good chance that a modern court would uphold the decision.Theuniondivvie said:
Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.Sean_F said:
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.Theuniondivvie said:
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=210 -
I read the Chequers Plan white paper in Canada (in almost total isolation from the U.K. media) and found it an acceptable compromise. My views being similar to Gove in that regard: not ideal but the right strategic balance for the UK.RobC said:
Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.AlastairMeeks said:
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.0 -
I tend to think Jodl was very unlucky to be executed.ydoethur said:
In what way a travesty? He himself admitted his main defence was based on a lie.Theuniondivvie said:
Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.Sean_F said:
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.Theuniondivvie said:
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
There were some controversies around Nuremberg as well of course, particularly over Hess and some of the military officers - I seem to remember Airey Neave believed Jodl would have been acquitted or at least, not executed had the trials been held a year later. He also criticised the judges for executing Sauckel while imprisoning Speer (who was ultimately in charge of the forced labour programme).
Neave's account of Nuremburg was fascinating.0 -
Old men in a hurry no doubt but I'm not sure causing chaos is the way forward for Labour. They need to reunite their europhile and eurosceptic support bases to win the next election and that can be done if the least harmful type of Brexit can be negotiated under the Tory bannergrabcocque said:
As you say, though, nailing the Tories is, has to be, priority 1.Stark_Dawning said:The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
Obviously if economic chaos can be avoided that's great, but Labour are not going to not cause chaos if they have a chance to bring down the government.0 -
Of course the Government will fail the tests regardless of what they do or how well the negotiations go.Sean_F said:
Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.grabcocque said:
I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.Cyclefree said:
Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.DavidL said:
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.grabcocque said:Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
Theresa May may find herself relying on the abstentions (or even active votes) of several dozen Labour MP rebels at the end who want to avoid no deal.0 -
Twitter makes fools of many people.Sean_F said:
It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.rkrkrk said:
There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.AlastairMeeks said:
Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.Gardenwalker said:
Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.MarqueeMark said:
Loss of sense of humour in this heat?Gardenwalker said:
And people call Andrew Adonis mad.williamglenn said:From a Conservative MEP.
https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1022031122165915648?s=21
At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.
This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.0
