My EU prediction: The EU will back down on fish, which was the plan all along, so the UK can say "See, we've won something!".

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Stuartinromford said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1296739313460355072

What the feck is "maintaining access to UK fishing waters" if not "Cherry Picking"?

Quite. I really do not understand why any comments from the EU on negotiations is treated as gospel truth or automatically to be taken at face value - I wouldn't trust negotiators playing the media game from either side to tell the unvarnished truth, because they are negotiators. If agreements eventually get signed without all the movement from whichever side said was essential, they don't stand up and say 'Sorry, we were wrong'.

No - negotiators talk bullcrap whilst negotiations are going on. We should stop listening to the whole lot of them, from both sides.

EU good, UK bad. That's all you need to know.

It's never been good/bad, or nice/nasty. It's always been about power (and that's true on both sides; remember "we hold all the cards"?)

If the EU are of the view that a deal with the UK is a nice thing to have, but not worth contaminating their single market for, they have the sovereign freedom to choose that course. They may be chumps and ninnies for that (though they're probably not) but it's their choice, and ultimately there's a low limit on what the UK can do about that.

UK cannot imagine that someone may have principles and want to stick to them even if they can make more money being unprincipled venal creeps.

Malc, do you even think about what you're posting sometimes? Do you think the image of the SM is more important than the livelihoods of the much lampooned 'prosecco and carmakers' of the EU? I don't think you believe that for a second - you're doing what you constantly accuse others of doing to the Scottish Government - anything that comes from a UK perspective, you instantly put the boot in.

It's not the image as such that matters, but the integrity of the single market is far more important to the EU than getting a little bit more or less trade with the UK.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/20/schools-consider-appeals-against-gcse-grades-that-are-too-high

You could not make this up

I would have sworn OFQUAL couldn’t have fucked this up more than they have.

I should have had more faith.

What it does do is underline, even more than last week, is how stupid and inaccurate this algorithm is.

Doesn’t it show the stupidity of having an algorithm at all when you are trying to deal with individual outcomes? Use of an algorithm is a category error.

Yes.

What does it say about how far we can trust our exams systems when they are regulated by people who can make such a simple error?

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

@HYUFD Putin is a highly intelligent, highly capable, ex-KGB officer. Farage is a moron.

They are nothing alike.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/asentance/status/1296740670850445312

All under control at 0.1%.

£2trn x 0.1% = £2bn interest per year bargain!

Rishi leading the way again!!

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD Putin is a highly intelligent, highly capable, ex-KGB officer. Farage is a moron.

They are nothing alike.

I note you only draw the contrast with the ‘highly intelligent’ bit.

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

If we get a hard Brexit with all the economic and social pain that will ensue, I'm sure Nigel will sniff out plenty of opportunities.

Nigelb said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heroin-prescription-treatment-middlesbrough-hat-results-crime-homelessness-drugs-a9680551.html

This is superb news, whatever side you sit on.

I think we should decriminalise weed as it happens

It is; the statistics, and the improvements from this abysmal level are astonishing:
...Researchers studied six of the participants over 29 weeks in the programme, who prior to the scheme had been responsible for at least 541 crimes at an estimated cost to the public purse of £2.1m....

During the Coalition government, for a period, the system of bail-on-top-of-bail - where someone would be on bail, commit another crime and get bailed again, was pretty much halted.

Crime levels collapsed, because the small number of habitual criminals, who commit multiple crimes per day, rapidly wound up on remand, awaiting trial.

In Wiltshire, IIRC, refusing bail to one burglar dropped the burglary rate by a double digit percentage. His modus operandi had been to go into a street in a commuter town, wait for people to go to work, and then burgle his way down the street.....

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

So my university’s COVID plan is as follows:

Students will be on site for 3 hours a week, and teaching staff will only be allowed on site when they are teaching.

Sounds grim.

On the scope of TfL, historically the London Passenger Transport Area created as London Transport’s operating area in 1933 extended well past the modern borders of London, deep into the surrounding Home Counties. Older London and the South-East PBers like me may remember the green “country buses” operated by LT until 1970 and then by the nationalized National Bus Company until privatization in the late 80s.

But TfL doesn’t in fact operate so much public transport itself: just the Underground and the Woolwich ferry. All the other rail services like the Croydon Tramlink, DLR, Overground and Crossrail are let out as “concessions” to private operators. The differences from the National Rail franchise is that TfL controls the branding (look very closely next time you travel by DLR for instance and you might spot who the real operator is), and TfL sets the fares and collects the revenue, merely paying a set fee to the concession operator. The concession model has become so successful that the devolved administrations that control their local rail franchises (Scotland, Wales and the Liverpool City Region) have adopted it too (in Northern Ireland public transport was never privatized and remains directly state owned and operated). The Tyne and Wear Metro has also been moved from a public ownership and operation model to a concession, I think the only other rail systems in direct public ownership and operation in Britain are the Glasgow Subway and the Blackpool Tramway.

London’s buses were originally privatized under a competitive franchising model in the 80s, but this has gradually transformed into something close to a concession model over time as the original model proved not to be viable. The new City Regions can now apply for similar powers over local bus services as TfL, and IIRC Greater Manchester has done so.

It’s probably inevitable that the remaining private passenger rail franchises will become concessions in due course, and effectively they already have under the emergency arrangements for the pandemic; they would have all gone bust and stopped operating by now if not.

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

If Boris really wanted a hard Brexit we wouldn’t be desperately trying to get a deal by September.

Any concessions, any payments, any constraints, will be criticized.

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

Not only that, but the defections would be for good this time. The tories would never win the trust of these voters back.

@rpjs Nexus who operate the Tyne and Wear Metro are now state owned. DB pulled out.

rpjs said:

On the scope of TfL, historically the London Passenger Transport Area created as London Transport’s operating area in 1933 extended well past the modern borders of London, deep into the surrounding Home Counties. Older London and the South-East PBers like me may remember the green “country buses” operated by LT until 1970 and then by the nationalized National Bus Company until privatization in the late 80s.

But TfL doesn’t in fact operate so much public transport itself: just the Underground and the Woolwich ferry. All the other rail services like the Croydon Tramlink, DLR, Overground and Crossrail are let out as “concessions” to private operators. The differences from the National Rail franchise is that TfL controls the branding (look very closely next time you travel by DLR for instance and you might spot who the real operator is), and TfL sets the fares and collects the revenue, merely paying a set fee to the concession operator. The concession model has become so successful that the devolved administrations that control their local rail franchises (Scotland, Wales and the Liverpool City Region) have adopted it too (in Northern Ireland public transport was never privatized and remains directly state owned and operated). The Tyne and Wear Metro has also been moved from a public ownership and operation model to a concession, I think the only other rail systems in direct public ownership and operation in Britain are the Glasgow Subway and the Blackpool Tramway.

London’s buses were originally privatized under a competitive franchising model in the 80s, but this has gradually transformed into something close to a concession model over time as the original model proved not to be viable. The new City Regions can now apply for similar powers over local bus services as TfL, and IIRC Greater Manchester has done so.

It’s probably inevitable that the remaining private passenger rail franchises will become concessions in due course, and effectively they already have under the emergency arrangements for the pandemic; they would have all gone bust and stopped operating by now if not.

Excellent post. That's spot on.

noneoftheabove said:

CatMan said:

My EU prediction: The EU will back down on fish, which was the plan all along, so the UK can say "See, we've won something!".

The obsession with fish is seriously weird. Its about the same size and use to the UK economy as timber or Premier League football. So yes, I am sure we can eventually win on fish, then have to spend millions on boat patrols to police it.

It will be our sole victory in negotiations if we do.

rpjs said:

On the scope of TfL, historically the London Passenger Transport Area created as London Transport’s operating area in 1933 extended well past the modern borders of London, deep into the surrounding Home Counties. Older London and the South-East PBers like me may remember the green “country buses” operated by LT until 1970 and then by the nationalized National Bus Company until privatization in the late 80s.

But TfL doesn’t in fact operate so much public transport itself: just the Underground and the Woolwich ferry. All the other rail services like the Croydon Tramlink, DLR, Overground and Crossrail are let out as “concessions” to private operators. The differences from the National Rail franchise is that TfL controls the branding (look very closely next time you travel by DLR for instance and you might spot who the real operator is), and TfL sets the fares and collects the revenue, merely paying a set fee to the concession operator. The concession model has become so successful that the devolved administrations that control their local rail franchises (Scotland, Wales and the Liverpool City Region) have adopted it too (in Northern Ireland public transport was never privatized and remains directly state owned and operated). The Tyne and Wear Metro has also been moved from a public ownership and operation model to a concession, I think the only other rail systems in direct public ownership and operation in Britain are the Glasgow Subway and the Blackpool Tramway.

London’s buses were originally privatized under a competitive franchising model in the 80s, but this has gradually transformed into something close to a concession model over time as the original model proved not to be viable. The new City Regions can now apply for similar powers over local bus services as TfL, and IIRC Greater Manchester has done so.

It’s probably inevitable that the remaining private passenger rail franchises will become concessions in due course, and effectively they already have under the emergency arrangements for the pandemic; they would have all gone bust and stopped operating by now if not.

WCML was as crowded as ever when I indulged in my guilty pleasure of going trainspotting at Rugeley Trent Valley.

Yes, the expresses were emptier than usual, but they were still fairly full. Much fuller than a few weeks ago. And I think freight has increased if anything.

Local services to London and Crewe were also surprisingly busy, although you could have put the passengers on the Chase Line in the back of a Mini.

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

Seems strange for 'English nationalists' to be throwing a hissy fit over a 'Yes' vote for Scottish independence. Isn't that something of a contradiction in terms?

noneoftheabove said:

CatMan said:

My EU prediction: The EU will back down on fish, which was the plan all along, so the UK can say "See, we've won something!".

The obsession with fish is seriously weird. Its about the same size and use to the UK economy as timber or Premier League football. So yes, I am sure we can eventually win on fish, then have to spend millions on boat patrols to police it.

Its our sovereign natural resource and they want it - and we want control of it. That is what independent nations do, they control their natural resources.

If there were major gold reserves underground would you expect us to offer access to them without a major quid pro quo in return?

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1296773488808689664

Not reckless. Its only a short deadline that concentrates minds and leads to compromises. We could have a ten year deadline - and in nine years, six months from now we still wouldn't have an agreement and people would be bleating on about the impending deadline.

You mean that Johnson cleverly imposed a short deadline on himself so that he would be forced to capitulate, like last time?

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

If Boris really wanted a hard Brexit we wouldn’t be desperately trying to get a deal by September.

Any concessions, any payments, any constraints, will be criticized.

Personally I think Boris could get away with regulatory alignment within a FTA provided it still ends free movement, allows our own trade deals and regains control of our fishing waters.

Any further concessions beyond that and there would be serious Tory to Brexit Party leakage again

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1296773488808689664

Not reckless. Its only a short deadline that concentrates minds and leads to compromises. We could have a ten year deadline - and in nine years, six months from now we still wouldn't have an agreement and people would be bleating on about the impending deadline.

You mean that Johnson cleverly imposed a short deadline on himself so that he would be forced to capitulate, like last time?

No. So that both parties would be forced to compromise, like last time.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

CatMan said:

My EU prediction: The EU will back down on fish, which was the plan all along, so the UK can say "See, we've won something!".

The obsession with fish is seriously weird. Its about the same size and use to the UK economy as timber or Premier League football. So yes, I am sure we can eventually win on fish, then have to spend millions on boat patrols to police it.

Its our sovereign natural resource and they want it - and we want control of it. That is what independent nations do, they control their natural resources.

If there were major gold reserves underground would you expect us to offer access to them without a major quid pro quo in return?

Och well, once Scotland goes with 2/3 of the UK fishing waters that should simplify things a bit.

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

Seems strange for 'English nationalists' to be throwing a hissy fit over a 'Yes' vote for Scottish independence. Isn't that something of a contradiction in terms?

No, as Nationalism leads to Nationalism in response almost always

That's almost as profound as Brexit means Brexit.

I say again. QAnon is the new Tea Party

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1296757713049878528?s=19

Interesting ad from a Republican candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S_Xl2eOeeY

LOL! Colin Graves says cricket has never attracted women or children.

williamglenn said:

Interesting ad from a Republican candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S_Xl2eOeeY

This advert only works if the GOP candidate isn't Trump. It does have an incredible amount of truth in it though.

tlg86 said:

LOL! Colin Graves says cricket has never attracted women or children.

He's a tit.

The Hundred will be a white elephant when he's gone.

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD would you honestly advocate for a “hard line” to be taken against an Independent Scotland? Really?

You’d cut off our noses to spite our face to make some sort of point?

If so, that’s incredibly juvenile. It would be in all our interests to ensure a mutually agreeable and fair outcome. Stability is key for economies remember.

If Scotland voted for independence it would become a foreign country and we would have to pursue our own interests above all in any independence and trade deal much as Brussels is now doing with us after we voted to Leave the EU.

In any case if we left the EU with no trade deal and Scotland then voted for independence there would have to be tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and customs posts along the Scottish borders until any rUK EU FTA was agreed, assuming an Independent Scotland rejoined the EU.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD would you honestly advocate for a “hard line” to be taken against an Independent Scotland? Really?

You’d cut off our noses to spite our face to make some sort of point?

If so, that’s incredibly juvenile. It would be in all our interests to ensure a mutually agreeable and fair outcome. Stability is key for economies remember.

If Scotland voted for independence it would become a foreign country and we would have to pursue our own interests above all in any independence and trade deal much as Brussels is now doing with us after we voted to Leave the EU

In any case if we left the EU with no trade deal and Scotland then voted for independence there would have to be tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and customs posts along the Scottish borders until any rUK EU FTA was agreed, assuming an Independent Scotland remained the EU.

Scotland can`t "remain in the EU". It is not in it now. It would have to join afresh, as a newly formed sovereign nation, and no doubt the EU would lay down conditions, which may or may not be palatable.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

LOL! Colin Graves says cricket has never attracted women or children.

He's a tit.

The Hundred will be a white elephant when he's gone.

Unfair. Tits are shapely and full of nourishing goodness.

Graves is an arse.

FF43 said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1296741235990892544

There will be a deal if the UK government moves on State Aid and not if it doesn't. State Aid is the reddest of EU red lines.

The trick is the UK exercising "sovereign control over its own laws" so that it is functionally identical with the EU rules and ECJ case law.

No the trick is the EU recognising the UK as a sovereign country and agreeing mutually respectful State Aid rules that befit a Free Trade Agreement.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD would you honestly advocate for a “hard line” to be taken against an Independent Scotland? Really?

You’d cut off our noses to spite our face to make some sort of point?

If so, that’s incredibly juvenile. It would be in all our interests to ensure a mutually agreeable and fair outcome. Stability is key for economies remember.

If Scotland voted for independence it would become a foreign country and we would have to pursue our own interests above all in any independence and trade deal much as Brussels is now doing with us after we voted to Leave the EU

In any case if we left the EU with no trade deal and Scotland then voted for independence there would have to be tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and customs posts along the Scottish borders until any rUK EU FTA was agreed, assuming an Independent Scotland remained the EU.

Stability and friendly relations on this island is literally one of our biggest interests. You don’t get that by “screwing” the other party.

Your suggested approach is indeed childish then. Thanks for confirming.

Not childish just reality, any nation in a trade deal puts its own interests first.

Though of course if Scotland voted for independence English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden Field

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

LOL! Colin Graves says cricket has never attracted women or children.

He's a tit.

The Hundred will be a white elephant when he's gone.

Unfair. Tits are shapely and full of nourishing goodness.

Graves is an arse.

Thought you might appreciate this.

https://twitter.com/EquusontheBuses/status/1296757683568115712

I have got to ask -

Why is Bastani obsessing about the Sykes-Picot agreement? Seems a bit niche even for him.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

LOL! Colin Graves says cricket has never attracted women or children.

He's a tit.

The Hundred will be a white elephant when he's gone.

Unfair. Tits are shapely and full of nourishing goodness.

Graves is an arse.

Thought you might appreciate this.

https://twitter.com/EquusontheBuses/status/1296757683568115712

I have got to ask -

Why is Bastani obsessing about the Sykes-Picot agreement? Seems a bit niche even for him.

Well a Corbynite obsessed about the borders of the Middle East seems unusual. No wait.

Alistair said:

I say again. QAnon is the new Tea Party

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1296757713049878528?s=19

Maybe Biden can win Texas, after all.

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1296741235990892544

There will be a deal if the UK government moves on State Aid and not if it doesn't. State Aid is the reddest of EU red lines.

The trick is the UK exercising "sovereign control over its own laws" so that it is functionally identical with the EU rules and ECJ case law.

No the trick is the EU recognising the UK as a sovereign country and agreeing mutually respectful State Aid rules that befit a Free Trade Agreement.

Then this FTA won't happen. The EU is looking for protection from "buccaneering" and can achieve it by cutting the UK off from its Single Market.

State Aid is important to the EU because it's one of the few areas where non-agreement can benefit the UK asymmetrically. EU members will need to follow EU State Aid rules whether the UK follows them or not. So the UK gets a free ride on the Level Playing Field.

Root’s getting bogged down here again.

Don’t think he’s finding the pressure of carrying the batting and captaining the side too easy.

LOCK HIM UP!

https://twitter.com/JamieJackson___/status/1296789943830839297

From the rest of the tweet thread

Petros Vassilakis, police spokesman: "When the brawl was all sorted out, one of the two groups - with the football players - started verbally abusing officers. There were several policemen there. At some point, one of the three members of the group - they were aged 27, 28..."

"and 29 - threw a swing at one of the policemen and a fight ensued. All of the three were arrested but during the effort to do so, the other two, including the football player, got violent also. They threw down at least two policemen..."

"hit them with their fists and kicked them. I can't tell you what they were telling us. All English swear words against the authorities and against the work of the police. All three, including the football player, are being held in custody, locked up in Mykonos cell..."

"They will appear before a state prosecutor on the island of Syros later today to be charged with aggravated assault."

Its all kicking off in Ireland over #golfgate

https://twitter.com/paulmurphy_TD/status/1296719095484821504?s=09

TheScreamingEagles said:

LOCK HIM UP!

https://twitter.com/JamieJackson___/status/1296789943830839297

From the rest of the tweet thread

Petros Vassilakis, police spokesman: "When the brawl was all sorted out, one of the two groups - with the football players - started verbally abusing officers. There were several policemen there. At some point, one of the three members of the group - they were aged 27, 28..."

"and 29 - threw a swing at one of the policemen and a fight ensued. All of the three were arrested but during the effort to do so, the other two, including the football player, got violent also. They threw down at least two policemen..."

"hit them with their fists and kicked them. I can't tell you what they were telling us. All English swear words against the authorities and against the work of the police. All three, including the football player, are being held in custody, locked up in Mykonos cell..."

"They will appear before a state prosecutor on the island of Syros later today to be charged with aggravated assault."

He sounds truly charming.

https://twitter.com/GraemeBandeira/status/1296790572703907848

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1296792410320777217

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

LOCK HIM UP!

https://twitter.com/JamieJackson___/status/1296789943830839297

From the rest of the tweet thread

Petros Vassilakis, police spokesman: "When the brawl was all sorted out, one of the two groups - with the football players - started verbally abusing officers. There were several policemen there. At some point, one of the three members of the group - they were aged 27, 28..."

"and 29 - threw a swing at one of the policemen and a fight ensued. All of the three were arrested but during the effort to do so, the other two, including the football player, got violent also. They threw down at least two policemen..."

"hit them with their fists and kicked them. I can't tell you what they were telling us. All English swear words against the authorities and against the work of the police. All three, including the football player, are being held in custody, locked up in Mykonos cell..."

"They will appear before a state prosecutor on the island of Syros later today to be charged with aggravated assault."

He sounds truly charming.

It's tragic, Harry Maguire was a good Sheffield lad, he's been ruined by living in Manchester.

Gallowgate said:

@rpjs Nexus who operate the Tyne and Wear Metro are now state owned. DB pulled out.

Thank you. I sit corrected, although I will note that Nexus itself has always been a public body: once upon a time it was the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive. The PTEs were created in the late 60s in an attempt to apply the London Transport model to the other major conurbations. They survived Thatcher’s abolition of the metropolitan counties but were made to privatize their bus operations (most other municipal bus operations were privatized too). They now come under the aegis of their local City Region combined authority. I don’t think any still use the term “PTE” anymore though, e.g. Greater Manchester PTE is now Transport for Greater Manchester.

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

How desperate can these crooks get...............

Gove enlists old enemies to help save the Union
Talks held with rivals including George Galloway

Michael Gove has held private talks with senior figures from across the political spectrum - including George Galloway - in an attempt to find a way to save the Union in the face of rising support for independence.
Discussions have taken place with a wide range of notable names including Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, the former Scottish Labour first minister, and Danny Alexander, the former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury. George Galloway, the socialist firebrand who is planning to run for Holyrood, has also been sounded out.

Obviously Gove reads my PB posts....

Or possibly, he's just an idiot. 🤔

No, he knows to beat the SNP divided Unionists fall, united Unionists win, certainly at the Holyrood constituency level

You are making the assumption that among unionists, voting for a generic unionist candidate is more important than voting on a range of other issues. In fact, that they are the simple opposite of Nationalists who will vote for the SNP regardless.

I would gently suggest that this is a very bold assumption.

In the current scenario I would suggest most Unionists would happily vote for 1 sole Unionist Alliance candidate at the Holyrood constituency level and then for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories, the Scottish LDs or Galloway's new party on the Holyrood top up list

You're welcome to suggest it, but you're wrong. If that was the case, we would see it reflected in the polls.

A more likely effect of such a scenario is that the remaining chunk of Labour Sindy supporters would peal off to the SNP and magnify their victory.

Wrong not one poll has had only one Unionist Alliance Party at the constituency level up against the SNP.

I am sick to death of whinging like yours which plays into Nationalist hands and keeps Unionists divided, this is an election where the country must come first and that means a Unionist Alliance. In seats formally held by Labour the Unionist Alliance candidate would come from Labour and the Tories and LDs would stand down in their favour giving the Unionist Alliance an excellent chance to win a seat the SNP win with under 50% of the vote, even if a few Scottish Labour voters went SNP.

End of conversation

But, given the recent history, no sane party leader is going to want to get into bed with the Tories. Shafted the LibDems when they were in Coalition, threw the Democratic Unionists under a bus over Brexit.
Especially when the party leader has the track record on honesty that the present one does.

It is not getting into bed with the Tories, there will be no Tory government at Holyrood next year almost certainly, it is about an Alliance to save the Union.

And if Scotland goes it is Armageddon for Labour, as the current polls show without Scottish MPs supporting him Starmer has near zero chance of becoming PM in 2024, the Tories will comfortably win a majority again

Not really, the current polls are not a good guide to what will happen in 3-4 years. It's perfectly possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland, as it did in 1997 and 2001. If Johnson presides over a bad Brexit, fucks up Covid and then loses the Northern colony then I'm not sure the Tories will prosper in 2024.

Only with a Blairite leader and Starmer may not be Corbyn but he is no Blairite either.

If Scotland goes the Tories will be re elected whatever happens against Starmer in 2024

Your over-confidence is gratifying.

Not over confidence, fact.

If Scotland went it would be the final nail in the coffin for non Blairite Labour after the loss of the Red Wall, only twice since WW2 in 1945 and 1966 have Labour won a majority in England without Blair, the Tories would have won in 1964 and February 1974 without Scotland and Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would have won Tory majorities without Scottish MPs at Westminster

We'll see what happens. The Tories will have presided over the loss of the country they were elected to govern. It will be an epic humiliation that will have significant - but unknowable - domestic and international implications. The idea that it will just be business as normal in England is a sweet one, but somewhat naive, IMO.

The evidence from Russia after the USSR broke up is it would lead to a Nationalist backlash in England, just entrenching the Tories even more especially as English voters would want Westminster to take as tough a line with Edinburgh as Brussels is now taking with London

The evidence from Russia is also that the ruling elite who presided over the USSR's break-up lost power and influence, and were hated by Russians for the humiliation inflicted on them and their country.

In the sense that Gorbachev ultimately led to Putin, in which case we could even end up with a Farage premiership in England on the same trend

Possibly we could. But not in 2024.

If the tories get a hard brexit, Farage will never be PM. There just isn;t enough grist for the mill. There won't be enough grievance, enough anger, enough of a stink of betrayal, enough of a sense the ordinary people of Britain have been sold yet again.

What Farage needs is the narrative of a 'bad' brexit. A weak brexit. A betrayal brexit.

If we get that, well that's when the tories will be in real, real bother. And that's why we won;t get it.

Agreed, if the Tories went for an EEA soft Brexit then lots of Leaver Tories could defect to the Brexit Party again and if the Tories allowed indyref2 and Yes won Farage could also benefit from the English nationalist backlash.

Hence Boris will go for a hard Brexit while also continuing to ban indyref2 while he remains PM

Most people who voted Brexit would accept any type of Brexit, very few would defect

43% of Leave voters say a Brexit Deal that involved staying in the single market and customs union would be unacceptable, 42% acceptable.

73% of Leave voters say No Deal would be acceptable over that

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/29/search-median-voter-brexit

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

LOCK HIM UP!

https://twitter.com/JamieJackson___/status/1296789943830839297

From the rest of the tweet thread

Petros Vassilakis, police spokesman: "When the brawl was all sorted out, one of the two groups - with the football players - started verbally abusing officers. There were several policemen there. At some point, one of the three members of the group - they were aged 27, 28..."

"and 29 - threw a swing at one of the policemen and a fight ensued. All of the three were arrested but during the effort to do so, the other two, including the football player, got violent also. They threw down at least two policemen..."

"hit them with their fists and kicked them. I can't tell you what they were telling us. All English swear words against the authorities and against the work of the police. All three, including the football player, are being held in custody, locked up in Mykonos cell..."

"They will appear before a state prosecutor on the island of Syros later today to be charged with aggravated assault."

He sounds truly charming.

It's tragic, Harry Maguire was a good Sheffield lad, he's been ruined by living in Manchester.

Has that happened before?