Mrs May claimed there was no magic money tree. It would appear she was wrong.
Debt is rising but we can't raise taxes In the light of Coronavirus government spending is likely to rise, not fall. Trading our way out seems unlikely as the economy is shrinking so our existing tax take will fall, and it seems inflating our way out of debt is not acceptable either.
It is a long time since economics A level, so I have forgotten how else we pay for current and future borrowing?
Cut current (rather than structural) spending to reduce current borrowing, and cut taxes to stimulate future growth.
Looking forward to them having the whip removed as per Ken Clarke and so on.
Whether that was a reasonable move or not it's not often that a party generally removes the whip simply for a single rebel vote. Despite the intelligence committee debacle I'd bet theyd find a way to self justify not punishing rebels on a tax issue. And guarantee many who cheered the brexit rebel expulsion would be outraged and say it's not the same if they got hit
I know people claiming Irish unification should happen as its all one island, who simultaneously support scottish independence despite Britain also being one island. It's a funny old world, as even where good reasons for something exist we often support that thing for a different sillier reason.
Left-wingers have been writing letters like that about conservative appointments for over 30 years.
Do you genuinely feel threatened by LGBT+ people like Tony Abbott does?
As an LGBT+ person I don't feel threatened by the appointment of Tony Abbott. Yes his views are from the ark. But as I know they are shared by many people in the Tory party who appointed him its hardly a shock. Had he been appointed to consider amendments to our Equalities legislation then we would have a problem. But he isn't. So we don't.
New broom at the BBC getting headlines in The Times and The Telegraph, nothing in The Grauniad.
Not even BBC job adverts in the Grauniad soon.
New DG certainly making his mark in the first few days. The BBC higher-ups might not realise it yet, but the new way of thinking is the only shot they have at keeping something that looks like a licence fee rather than a subscription model.
Mrs May claimed there was no magic money tree. It would appear she was wrong.
Debt is rising but we can't raise taxes In the light of Coronavirus government spending is likely to rise, not fall. Trading our way out seems unlikely as the economy is shrinking so our existing tax take will fall, and it seems inflating our way out of debt is not acceptable either.
It is a long time since economics A level, so I have forgotten how else we pay for current and future borrowing?
Be one of the best-looking lepers in the colony.
If safe and secure investment opportunities (for pension funds, insurance companies, etc) are sparse, as they would be if the entire world is affected and our economy shrinks, then Government gilts and bonds are attractive. So we can borrow more - in these conditions.
as long as we don't look too profligate and uncaring, of course. That could lead to inflating out, and that's when investors would get cold feet and demand higher interest rates or not buy bonds at all. There are plenty of other countries out there who could be more secure deals under those conditions.
Trump is very upset about the French cemetery story
They issued a rebuttal email that claims the choppers couldn't fly, so there would be a motorcade instead, which Trump didn't take...
The thing is whether the truth is exactly as reported by Atlantic or not, it rings true. Trump tweeting furiously about it just makes sure everybody hears about it.
Generally, I think there seems to be a good propaganda case for making claims that have inaccuracies and exaggerations, trying to get the other side to make a big fuss about the innaccuracies thus drawing everyone's attention to the gist of the story.
I'm not saying the Atlantic story is inaccurate, though it is a bit hearsay-ish.
The thing people don't realise about Social media is that by complaining about (a part of) a tweet there are also sharing the original tweet with people who follow them.
Commenting on a tweet or facebook story is often the wrong approach - it would be far better to completely ignore it.
For me this one is simple. The SNP will run on a manifesto which says that a majority SNP government will seek independence for Scotland. If the people of Scotland vote for it then there is your democratic mandate - which has already previously been recognised and accepted as such by the UK.
England cannot hold back democratic free will and self-determination. Support for those things is supposed to be what this country is fundamentally about. Its the same with NI - if the people of Ulster want to remain in the UK they are welcome. If they want independence or unification with the Republic they are welcome.
A loose federation or commonwealth arrangement for these Isles might suit everyone better. Not that any politician has the brains to propose such a thing.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
The disjoint between the polling in swing states like Michigan and the betting markets is quite perplexing. Certainly the betting markets give the impression of fighting the last war. 538 has Trump with a 30% chance of winning, that feels about right for now.
I think there's a 30% chance of a narrow Trump win, a 40% chance of a narrow Biden win, and a 30% chance of a big Biden win.
We are spookily at one. Although I am expressing it thus -
Biden is twice as likely to win as Trump and he has a good chance of a big win whereas a Trump win can only be close.
This is why I have bought Biden EC supremacy at 28 as my route to riches.
New broom at the BBC getting headlines in The Times and The Telegraph, nothing in The Grauniad.
Not even BBC job adverts in the Grauniad soon.
New DG certainly making his mark in the first few days. The BBC higher-ups might not realise it yet, but the new way of thinking is the only shot they have at keeping something that looks like a licence fee rather than a subscription model.
Especially if they get Charles Moore or Andrew Neil as chairman in the New Year.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
I have never respected the DUP and seeing Tweets like that just make me think even more than I will never shed a crocodile tear about Boris screwing over the DUP with the Brexit deal.
I hope the SNP get independence not out of any anger with Scotland or desire to see Scotland go, but simply because I think its in Scotland's best interests. If I was a Scot I would vote SNP/Yes despite being a right winger.
I hope that NI goes in part because I want rid of NI. I despise the IRA and loathe its sympathisers at the time, I would never have backed Irish unification pre-peace process but now? I want rid of its troubles, I want rid of its fanaticism and religion, the DUP and Sinn Fein and . . . let them be Ireland's problem, we've dealt with them long enough.
In the words of someone who probably shouldn't be brought up in discussions about Ireland: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Well I am a Tory and remain a staunch Unionist.
Ripping the country in two with border posts and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland, inevitable after a No Deal Brexit or even a basic FTA with the EU would not do us any good, Scotland would effectively be an EU colony in the British Isles.
It would also be the end of the United Kingdom, we would become simply England and Wales overnight and as for Northern Ireland I would happily give away the Catholic and Sinn Fein, Remain voting counties on the Irish border like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic of Ireland but in Protestant County Antrim every MP is DUP and every local authority voted Leave and it wants to remain with us.
England, Wales and Antrim would be fine with me, but the UK staying together best of all and that requires unity between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland
I'm not sure that Scotland and NI going would be the end of the United Kingdom is that great an argument to make to someone who has just said that Scotland and NI should go.
In the event NI goes so will Antrim just like how London left the EU.
It would not just be the end of the name of the country and the economic relationship remaining the same with free trade and no borders, there would be customs posts and tariffs between England and Scotland as a result of a hard Brexit and Scotland voting for independence and to return to the EU.
Antrim will not go, the dominant party in Antrim, the DUP, wants to stay part of the UK and not join the Republic of Ireland, the dominant party in London, Labour, does not want to rejoin the EU and leave the UK
It doesn't matter what the dominant party of Antrim wants. The dominant party of Merseyside wanted to stay in the EU. But Merseyside has left along with the rest of England.
If NI unifies that is it Antrim will have lost. That is democracy. It is also international law under the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory you could separate Antrim out, after all that was the reason Ulster was created in the first place. But Ulster is Ulster because it was deemed just about economically viable to be worth separating it out, that isn't going to be the case with Antrim.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
£24m of council money lost according to Telegraph.
Robbed from the rich (Nottingham City Council ratepayers)... and given ... to British Gas.
It would be interesting to see the sale price (small?) but hard to see exactly what Centrica are buying here - these customers, having signed up with RHE are clearly open to switching suppliers, so you'd think they're unlikely to stay with BG for long, once the apparently matched tariffs they're being put on run out.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
David, do you mean neccessary in place of sufficient ? As read your first and second sentences are directly contradictory.
HMG invests £522m in attempting to boost obesity and diabetes.
The idea that you "boost" obesity or diabetes by going out for a meal is part of the problem, not a part of the solution. @MaxPB produced figures the other day indicating that EOTHO has had a multiplier effect on the economy of 9x, making it the most successful economic policy of the last 50 years. £4.5bn of expenditure in restaurants will have helped save many jobs and keeping people active and in employment will undoubtedly boost their health too.
Giants On Clay Feet – COVID-19, infection control, and public health laboratory networks in England, the US, and (West-)Germany (1945-2020) https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/uv57t/
For me this one is simple. The SNP will run on a manifesto which says that a majority SNP government will seek independence for Scotland. If the people of Scotland vote for it then there is your democratic mandate - which has already previously been recognised and accepted as such by the UK.
England cannot hold back democratic free will and self-determination. Support for those things is supposed to be what this country is fundamentally about. Its the same with NI - if the people of Ulster want to remain in the UK they are welcome. If they want independence or unification with the Republic they are welcome.
A loose federation or commonwealth arrangement for these Isles might suit everyone better. Not that any politician has the brains to propose such a thing.
A federal system might be much better as a future arrangement, the best thing the government could do is start a Royal Commission on the idea.
But a starting point has to be that if there’s a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and an NI Assembly, there must also be a similar arrangement for England.
Oh dear. Even fanboi Iain Martin has started to realise BoZo is an empty suit...
My suspicion is that these Whitehall spats about control and mischievous civil servants, and the attempts by the No 10 chief adviser Dominic Cummings to exert authority at the centre, are merely intended to obscure the troubling reality that Boris spent a lifetime wanting to be prime minister but, one year into the job, still doesn’t know what to do with it.
This autumn, he had better find out and organise a plan, soon.
Did none of these people realise that Boris Johnson's prime motivation was simply to become prime minister, to acchieve the top job, to have the address 10 Downing Street? He was not and is not a politician with a vision of how the country should be run.
Are there many PMs who have such a vision, and a plan to implement it, as opposed to a focus on making it into Number 10?
May seemed to have a vision only for using Brexit and immigration as a means for achieving a landslide.
Cameron talked about the big society for a while, but did anything come of it? The plans were left to his ministers who implemented austerity, hostile environments, NHS reorganisation, universal credit, probation privatisation and other sundry personal projects to our continuing cost.
Brown was famously assumed to have spent a decade devising a master plan for No. 10 while in No. 11, but when he made the move there was nothing there.
Blair arguably took the art of winning power for its own sake to a purists perfection.
It would be easy to say that Major was mired in a constant struggle to survive and had no opportunity to implement a plan. But in comparison to those who came later I see a bit more in the way of pursuing a plan, to privatise so much before the oncoming tidal wave that the Thatcherite consensus would be as deeply embedded as possible.
So we come to Thatcher, the last British PM who came to office with a clear plan of what she wanted to achieve (in her terms something like: free business from the unions and the state, free individuals from reliance on the state) and managed to achieve it (NUM smashed, myriad privatisations, right to buy).
Johnson is thoroughly ordinary in this respect, even though he has been so unusual in so many others.
We heard the exact same thing last year and you're reacting in the exact same way. Is there a tiny part that remembers that certainty?
That doesn't mean we should be complacent about the prospect of no deal, but why are you so certain this time you're right when you, and I, were wrong before about what he wants?
No deal is his only option.
Surrender brings back the Brexit party, and, together with mounting anger over other matters such as immigration, a massive problem for the tories. Ten points in the polls overnight and guaranteed obliteration at the next election.
We already read MPs some are planning to veto parts of his budget. Surrender to the EU could see Johnson effectively lose his 80 seat majority overnight and an election could ensue well before 2024.
I have never respected the DUP and seeing Tweets like that just make me think even more than I will never shed a crocodile tear about Boris screwing over the DUP with the Brexit deal.
I hope the SNP get independence not out of any anger with Scotland or desire to see Scotland go, but simply because I think its in Scotland's best interests. If I was a Scot I would vote SNP/Yes despite being a right winger.
I hope that NI goes in part because I want rid of NI. I despise the IRA and loathe its sympathisers at the time, I would never have backed Irish unification pre-peace process but now? I want rid of its troubles, I want rid of its fanaticism and religion, the DUP and Sinn Fein and . . . let them be Ireland's problem, we've dealt with them long enough.
In the words of someone who probably shouldn't be brought up in discussions about Ireland: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Well I am a Tory and remain a staunch Unionist.
Ripping the country in two with border posts and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland, inevitable after a No Deal Brexit or even a basic FTA with the EU would not do us any good, Scotland would effectively be an EU colony in the British Isles.
It would also be the end of the United Kingdom, we would become simply England and Wales overnight and as for Northern Ireland I would happily give away the Catholic and Sinn Fein, Remain voting counties on the Irish border like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic of Ireland but in Protestant County Antrim every MP is DUP and every local authority voted Leave and it wants to remain with us.
England, Wales and Antrim would be fine with me, but the UK staying together best of all and that requires unity between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland
I'm not sure that Scotland and NI going would be the end of the United Kingdom is that great an argument to make to someone who has just said that Scotland and NI should go.
In the event NI goes so will Antrim just like how London left the EU.
It would not just be the end of the name of the country and the economic relationship remaining the same with free trade and no borders, there would be customs posts and tariffs between England and Scotland as a result of a hard Brexit and Scotland voting for independence and to return to the EU.
Antrim will not go, the dominant party in Antrim, the DUP, wants to stay part of the UK and not join the Republic of Ireland, the dominant party in London, Labour, does not want to rejoin the EU and leave the UK
It doesn't matter what the dominant party of Antrim wants. The dominant party of Merseyside wanted to stay in the EU. But Merseyside has left along with the rest of England.
If NI unifies that is it Antrim will have lost. That is democracy. It is also international law under the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory you could separate Antrim out, after all that was the reason Ulster was created in the first place. But Ulster is Ulster because it was deemed just about economically viable to be worth separating it out, that isn't going to be the case with Antrim.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
HYUFD thinks that Antrim will be separated out. It won't.
The Good Friday Agreement is explicit on Irish unification if it is voted for. Separating out anything would violate the Good Friday Agreement and there isn't a snowballs chance in the Death Valley of it happening.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
Johnson is thoroughly ordinary in this respect, even though he has been so unusual in so many others.
The additional tragedy with BoZo is you could argue his plan might have been to make the best of Brexit (I was going to say success, but no), however his only goal is doing it. Badly.
I would, though, question his claim that sterlingisation is a “feasible” option, particularly with Scotland’s fiscal deficit heading north of 25% of GDP due to the pandemic.
Scotland persistently runs a deficit on the current account of its balance of payments of around 10% of GDP (£16bn). Currently this deficit is settled by the UK. With independence, Scotland would be responsible for financing its twin fiscal and current account deficits.....
The combination of no external adjustment mechanism and large-scale borrowing in a foreign currency, along with a unitary probability of devaluation, is simply a recipe for national bankruptcy.
Prof Ronald MacDonald Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
The problem with the ID cards that David Davis opposed was not the ID card...
Yes, I know.
The problem was the ludicrous idea of unifying all the government databases, and spreading the access to the aggregated data far and wide. Imagine a world where the Police National Computer system brings up your financial, tax and health records when they do a search*....
It got to the point that senior civil servants pushing the project were demanding that they (and their families) would have their data sequestrated in a special, limited access part of the system. A part of the system designated for "VIPs" - literally.
What is forgotten was that David Davis actually proposed (IIRC) a sensible version of a national ID card as a counter proposal. A photo ID, whose id number would be used across government systems. Used online, it would have been SSO system.
*For those that don't know - it is/was a common thing that PNC operators would sell records to journalists/private investigators for 50 pounds a time.
Trump is very upset about the French cemetery story
They issued a rebuttal email that claims the choppers couldn't fly, so there would be a motorcade instead, which Trump didn't take...
The thing is whether the truth is exactly as reported by Atlantic or not, it rings true. Trump tweeting furiously about it just makes sure everybody hears about it.
Generally, I think there seems to be a good propaganda case for making claims that have inaccuracies and exaggerations, trying to get the other side to make a big fuss about the innaccuracies thus drawing everyone's attention to the gist of the story.
I'm not saying the Atlantic story is inaccurate, though it is a bit hearsay-ish.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
David, do you mean neccessary in place of sufficient ? As read your first and second sentences are directly contradictory.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am distinguishing between having a majority in the Scottish Parliament and having a majority of the votes actually cast. So, to take 2011 as an example, the SNP got 45.4% and the Greens 4.4% making a total of 49.8% whilst the Unionists got 50.2% even although the SNP got an overall majority. In 2016 the SNP/Green share of the vote was down, indeed there has never been a majority of the votes for independence seeking parties.
Normally that doesn't matter and the SNP have been in government as a result but for this binary choice of another referendum it does seem to me that evidence that a majority of Scots are voting for independence seeking parties is the evidence we need that there is a demand in Scotland for another referendum.
John Howard was PM for nearly 12 years since then his successors have lasted
Rudd - 2 years and 303 days
Gillard - 3 years and 3 days
Abbott - 1 year and 362 days
Turnbull - 2 years and 343 days
Morrison (incumbent) - 2 years and 10 days and counting.
Brutal internal politics. How long before Morrisons unexpected (to many) GE win no longer keeps him safe?
Morrison is preferred to Labour leader Albanese 58% to 29% on the latest poll and the Coalition leads Labor on all primary vote polls and most 2PP polls so he should be OK and at the moment he has already served as PM for 2 years this month so has already lasted longer than Abbott and almost as long as Rudd and Turnbull.
He only needs to last another 2 years to overtake Gillard too and become Australia's longest serving PM since John Howard, who along with Bob Hawke is the best Australian PM of recent decades
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
The problem with the ID cards that David Davis opposed was not the ID card...
Yes, I know.
The problem was the ludicrous idea of unifying all the government databases, and spreading the access to the aggregated data far and wide. Imagine a world where the Police National Computer system brings up your financial, tax and health records when they do a search*....
It got to the point that senior civil servants pushing the project were demanding that they (and their families) would have their data sequestrated in a special, limited access part of the system. A part of the system designated for "VIPs" - literally.
What is forgotten was that David Davis actually proposed (IIRC) a sensible version of a national ID card as a counter proposal. A photo ID, whose id number would be used across government systems. Used online, it would have been SSO system.
*For those that don't know - it is/was a common thing that PNC operators would sell records to journalists/private investigators for 50 pounds a time.
Remember when some idiot put the details of 25 million child benefit records on an unsecured CD and lost said CD?
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I don't agree. We have a seat based democracy.
Yes. In the case of constitutional matters, "seats in Westminster".
You're both arguing moral cases, not legal ones.
Johnson can simply say "no", and until the SNP persuade enough MPs in Westminster to vote for a Section 30 order, they're stuck.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
The problem isn't the cards themselves. The problem with the previous proposal was that it was to be used as part of a system to link all your personal information together and distribute it.
So, a bod at the council would be able to search on "kinabalu". As part of an investigation on you not putting your re-cycling in the right bins. And getting your financial and medical records in the results......
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I don't agree. We have a seat based democracy.
Which is why we need to change the voting system, of course. Then that paticular argument would collapse.
... The Brexit party may yet revive on the basis that No Deal is "not the Brexit we voted for"
They'd be right, of course. Brexit voters were promised that the UK would retain tariff-free, friction-free access to EU markets. There is absolutely no way that crashing out in a chaotic No Deal can be construed as the Brexit anyone voted for.
I have never respected the DUP and seeing Tweets like that just make me think even more than I will never shed a crocodile tear about Boris screwing over the DUP with the Brexit deal.
I hope the SNP get independence not out of any anger with Scotland or desire to see Scotland go, but simply because I think its in Scotland's best interests. If I was a Scot I would vote SNP/Yes despite being a right winger.
I hope that NI goes in part because I want rid of NI. I despise the IRA and loathe its sympathisers at the time, I would never have backed Irish unification pre-peace process but now? I want rid of its troubles, I want rid of its fanaticism and religion, the DUP and Sinn Fein and . . . let them be Ireland's problem, we've dealt with them long enough.
In the words of someone who probably shouldn't be brought up in discussions about Ireland: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Well I am a Tory and remain a staunch Unionist.
Ripping the country in two with border posts and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland, inevitable after a No Deal Brexit or even a basic FTA with the EU would not do us any good, Scotland would effectively be an EU colony in the British Isles.
It would also be the end of the United Kingdom, we would become simply England and Wales overnight and as for Northern Ireland I would happily give away the Catholic and Sinn Fein, Remain voting counties on the Irish border like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic of Ireland but in Protestant County Antrim every MP is DUP and every local authority voted Leave and it wants to remain with us.
England, Wales and Antrim would be fine with me, but the UK staying together best of all and that requires unity between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland
I'm not sure that Scotland and NI going would be the end of the United Kingdom is that great an argument to make to someone who has just said that Scotland and NI should go.
In the event NI goes so will Antrim just like how London left the EU.
It would not just be the end of the name of the country and the economic relationship remaining the same with free trade and no borders, there would be customs posts and tariffs between England and Scotland as a result of a hard Brexit and Scotland voting for independence and to return to the EU.
Antrim will not go, the dominant party in Antrim, the DUP, wants to stay part of the UK and not join the Republic of Ireland, the dominant party in London, Labour, does not want to rejoin the EU and leave the UK
It doesn't matter what the dominant party of Antrim wants. The dominant party of Merseyside wanted to stay in the EU. But Merseyside has left along with the rest of England.
If NI unifies that is it Antrim will have lost. That is democracy. It is also international law under the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory you could separate Antrim out, after all that was the reason Ulster was created in the first place. But Ulster is Ulster because it was deemed just about economically viable to be worth separating it out, that isn't going to be the case with Antrim.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
HYUFD thinks that Antrim will be separated out. It won't.
The Good Friday Agreement is explicit on Irish unification if it is voted for. Separating out anything would violate the Good Friday Agreement and there isn't a snowballs chance in the Death Valley of it happening.
Oh I can assure you it will.
The Good Friday Agreement simply means the Catholic and Sinn Fein bits can rejoin the Republic and maybe even Down, every seat in Antrim however is DUP and the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement anyway and Antrim also voted Leave.
Antrim would overwhelmingly vote against reunification even if a border poll occurred and would stay united with England and Wales or even declare UDI rather than be forced into the Republic against its will (although alternatively we could ship the Orange Order and all the Protestants in Antrim back to Scotland and thus kill 2 birds with one stone)
HMG invests £522m in attempting to boost obesity and diabetes.
The idea that you "boost" obesity or diabetes by going out for a meal is part of the problem, not a part of the solution. @MaxPB produced figures the other day indicating that EOTHO has had a multiplier effect on the economy of 9x, making it the most successful economic policy of the last 50 years. £4.5bn of expenditure in restaurants will have helped save many jobs and keeping people active and in employment will undoubtedly boost their health too.
Did Spain try anything like this? They should.
Indeed.
Eating out for one meal once or twice per month doesn't cause obesity.
Eating junk food every single day does cause obesity.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
The problem isn't the cards themselves. The problem with the previous proposal was that it was to be used as part of a system to link all your personal information together and distribute it.
So, a bod at the council would be able to search on "kinabalu". As part of an investigation on you not putting your re-cycling in the right bins. And getting your financial and medical records in the results......
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
Wait until your forget or lose your ID card out of the house.
You'll soon become an unperson.
Given the way the number of jumped arseholes work for the police, I fear your confidence is misplaced.
If I'm hiring someone to - for example - be a Javascript developer, then their views on the moon landing, homeopathy, Brexit, gay marriage, and whether you should put milk in before or after the water with tea are entirely beside the point.
Now. If you choose to use my office as a propaganda zone to push your agenda, we're going to have a problem. But your views on things peripheral to your job - on which God (if any you believe in), on Tottenham Hotspur or anything else - should not affect whether you are hired or not. Whether you can do a good job is the only criteria that matters.
Here, not his views on climate change or gay marriage, I have a problem. Other than signing trade deals that were largely complete when he took over as Prime Minister of Australia, what evidence is there that he brings anythin to the table at all?
I made that point yesterday evening - along with the facts about the trade deals - and concerns about his publicly expressed views on downgrading labour and environmental standards, contrary to current British government policy.
The fact that he may also be a patronising condescending twit in relation to women puts him amongst the majority of men of his age in senior positions in public life. He probably fits in with very well with today’s Tory-UKIP government.
Abbott is clearly a pillock. He's also Australian. How could we be sure he was negotiating in our interests and not those of his native country? What if a trade deal with a third country harmed Australia's interests? Presumably he'd have to step back from any negotiation with Australia itself - how could he negotiate in our interests then? The whole thing smacks of the weird 1950s white commonwealth nostalgia that seems rampant among Brexiteers. Australia is not British, and Australians are not just Brits who've been living in the sunshine for a few years and are desperate to return to the mother country. This may shock some people on here, but some Australians don't even like us that much.
I have never respected the DUP and seeing Tweets like that just make me think even more than I will never shed a crocodile tear about Boris screwing over the DUP with the Brexit deal.
I hope the SNP get independence not out of any anger with Scotland or desire to see Scotland go, but simply because I think its in Scotland's best interests. If I was a Scot I would vote SNP/Yes despite being a right winger.
I hope that NI goes in part because I want rid of NI. I despise the IRA and loathe its sympathisers at the time, I would never have backed Irish unification pre-peace process but now? I want rid of its troubles, I want rid of its fanaticism and religion, the DUP and Sinn Fein and . . . let them be Ireland's problem, we've dealt with them long enough.
In the words of someone who probably shouldn't be brought up in discussions about Ireland: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Well I am a Tory and remain a staunch Unionist.
Ripping the country in two with border posts and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland, inevitable after a No Deal Brexit or even a basic FTA with the EU would not do us any good, Scotland would effectively be an EU colony in the British Isles.
It would also be the end of the United Kingdom, we would become simply England and Wales overnight and as for Northern Ireland I would happily give away the Catholic and Sinn Fein, Remain voting counties on the Irish border like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic of Ireland but in Protestant County Antrim every MP is DUP and every local authority voted Leave and it wants to remain with us.
England, Wales and Antrim would be fine with me, but the UK staying together best of all and that requires unity between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland
I'm not sure that Scotland and NI going would be the end of the United Kingdom is that great an argument to make to someone who has just said that Scotland and NI should go.
In the event NI goes so will Antrim just like how London left the EU.
It would not just be the end of the name of the country and the economic relationship remaining the same with free trade and no borders, there would be customs posts and tariffs between England and Scotland as a result of a hard Brexit and Scotland voting for independence and to return to the EU.
Antrim will not go, the dominant party in Antrim, the DUP, wants to stay part of the UK and not join the Republic of Ireland, the dominant party in London, Labour, does not want to rejoin the EU and leave the UK
It doesn't matter what the dominant party of Antrim wants. The dominant party of Merseyside wanted to stay in the EU. But Merseyside has left along with the rest of England.
If NI unifies that is it Antrim will have lost. That is democracy. It is also international law under the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory you could separate Antrim out, after all that was the reason Ulster was created in the first place. But Ulster is Ulster because it was deemed just about economically viable to be worth separating it out, that isn't going to be the case with Antrim.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
HYUFD thinks that Antrim will be separated out. It won't.
The Good Friday Agreement is explicit on Irish unification if it is voted for. Separating out anything would violate the Good Friday Agreement and there isn't a snowballs chance in the Death Valley of it happening.
Oh I can assure you it will.
The Good Friday Agreement simply means the Catholic and Sinn Fein bits can rejoin the Republic and maybe even Down, every seat in Antrim however is DUP and the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement anyway and Antrim also voted Leave.
Antrim would overwhelmingly vote against reunification even if a border poll occurred and would stay united with England and Wales or even declare UDI rather than be forced into the Republic against its will (although alternatively we could ship the Orange Order and all the Protestants in Antrim back to Scotland and thus kill 2 birds with one stone)
You are insane.
Please cite a single thing from the Good Friday Agreement that says NI can be repartitioned. 🙄
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
The problem with the ID cards that David Davis opposed was not the ID card...
Yes, I know.
The problem was the ludicrous idea of unifying all the government databases, and spreading the access to the aggregated data far and wide. Imagine a world where the Police National Computer system brings up your financial, tax and health records when they do a search*....
It got to the point that senior civil servants pushing the project were demanding that they (and their families) would have their data sequestrated in a special, limited access part of the system. A part of the system designated for "VIPs" - literally.
What is forgotten was that David Davis actually proposed (IIRC) a sensible version of a national ID card as a counter proposal. A photo ID, whose id number would be used across government systems. Used online, it would have been SSO system.
*For those that don't know - it is/was a common thing that PNC operators would sell records to journalists/private investigators for 50 pounds a time.
Remember when some idiot put the details of 25 million child benefit records on an unsecured CD and lost said CD?
Yes
Under the ID card proposal, IRRC, they wanted to take biometric data. And not hash it. Because the police wanted it, not for ID, but as records.....
So that they could lose a DVD of everyones eyescans and fingerprints on a train, I presume.
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
The problem isn't the cards themselves. The problem with the previous proposal was that it was to be used as part of a system to link all your personal information together and distribute it.
So, a bod at the council would be able to search on "kinabalu". As part of an investigation on you not putting your re-cycling in the right bins. And getting your financial and medical records in the results......
If I'm hiring someone to - for example - be a Javascript developer, then their views on the moon landing, homeopathy, Brexit, gay marriage, and whether you should put milk in before or after the water with tea are entirely beside the point.
Now. If you choose to use my office as a propaganda zone to push your agenda, we're going to have a problem. But your views on things peripheral to your job - on which God (if any you believe in), on Tottenham Hotspur or anything else - should not affect whether you are hired or not. Whether you can do a good job is the only criteria that matters.
Here, not his views on climate change or gay marriage, I have a problem. Other than signing trade deals that were largely complete when he took over as Prime Minister of Australia, what evidence is there that he brings anythin to the table at all?
I made that point yesterday evening - along with the facts about the trade deals - and concerns about his publicly expressed views on downgrading labour and environmental standards, contrary to current British government policy.
The fact that he may also be a patronising condescending twit in relation to women puts him amongst the majority of men of his age in senior positions in public life. He probably fits in with very well with today’s Tory-UKIP government.
Abbott is clearly a pillock. He's also Australian. How could we be sure he was negotiating in our interests and not those of his native country? What if a trade deal with a third country harmed Australia's interests? Presumably he'd have to step back from any negotiation with Australia itself - how could he negotiate in our interests then? The whole thing smacks of the weird 1950s white commonwealth nostalgia that seems rampant among Brexiteers. Australia is not British, and Australians are not just Brits who've been living in the sunshine for a few years and are desperate to return to the mother country. This may shock some people on here, but some Australians don't even like us that much.
I would say New Zealand is closer to the UK in culture than Australia but after New Zealand and maybe Ireland Australia is closer to the UK culturally than any other nation on earth and of course we still share our Head of State
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I don't agree. We have a seat based democracy.
But we have accepted that a referendum of the people is the correct way to resolve questions as fundamental as this. Otherwise Salmond might just as well have declared independence with his majority in Holyrood and not bothered with a referendum in the first place.
Sturgeon herself said that there had to be good evidence that the Scottish people had changed their mind about this. I am suggesting what that good evidence might be. It's not perfect because the turnout in the Scottish elections is significantly smaller than for the referendum but it is the best we can have.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I don't agree. We have a seat based democracy.
Which is why we need to change the voting system, of course. Then that paticular argument would collapse.
Change the system away from Scotland's Proportional Representation and to a better system like First Past The Post?
Yeah sure if they want to do that I'd fully support it. Their choice.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
David, do you mean neccessary in place of sufficient ? As read your first and second sentences are directly contradictory.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am distinguishing between having a majority in the Scottish Parliament and having a majority of the votes actually cast. So, to take 2011 as an example, the SNP got 45.4% and the Greens 4.4% making a total of 49.8% whilst the Unionists got 50.2% even although the SNP got an overall majority. In 2016 the SNP/Green share of the vote was down, indeed there has never been a majority of the votes for independence seeking parties.
Normally that doesn't matter and the SNP have been in government as a result but for this binary choice of another referendum it does seem to me that evidence that a majority of Scots are voting for independence seeking parties is the evidence we need that there is a demand in Scotland for another referendum.
Since the case for a referendum based on a Holyrood vote is a moral one, clearly if there is a majority of votes for a referendum the moral case is stronger. Doesn't shift the legal case one iota.
HMG invests £522m in attempting to boost obesity and diabetes.
The idea that you "boost" obesity or diabetes by going out for a meal is part of the problem, not a part of the solution. @MaxPB produced figures the other day indicating that EOTHO has had a multiplier effect on the economy of 9x, making it the most successful economic policy of the last 50 years. £4.5bn of expenditure in restaurants will have helped save many jobs and keeping people active and in employment will undoubtedly boost their health too.
Did Spain try anything like this? They should.
Indeed.
Eating out for one meal once or twice per month doesn't cause obesity.
Eating junk food every single day does cause obesity.
There is also an argument that, by reducing the costs of restaurant meals, some families may switch from eating junk food to healthier options. Would be interesting to see how McD's sales compare up with other restaurants under the scheme
Mrs May claimed there was no magic money tree. It would appear she was wrong.
Debt is rising but we can't raise taxes In the light of Coronavirus government spending is likely to rise, not fall. Trading our way out seems unlikely as the economy is shrinking so our existing tax take will fall, and it seems inflating our way out of debt is not acceptable either.
It is a long time since economics A level, so I have forgotten how else we pay for current and future borrowing?
Cut current (rather than structural) spending to reduce current borrowing, and cut taxes to stimulate future growth.
How do we achieve point 1 when the unemployment bill for one is likely to go through the roof. Point 2, we might be waiting a long, long time for growth stimulation to work.
I would, though, question his claim that sterlingisation is a “feasible” option, particularly with Scotland’s fiscal deficit heading north of 25% of GDP due to the pandemic.
Scotland persistently runs a deficit on the current account of its balance of payments of around 10% of GDP (£16bn). Currently this deficit is settled by the UK. With independence, Scotland would be responsible for financing its twin fiscal and current account deficits.....
The combination of no external adjustment mechanism and large-scale borrowing in a foreign currency, along with a unitary probability of devaluation, is simply a recipe for national bankruptcy.
Prof Ronald MacDonald Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Great letter by Ronnie. An independent Scotland would either choose, or be forced by markets to adopt, a separate currency sharply devalued wrt sterling. That should where discussions about the currency start. Let's hope we get to hear them before the gadarene rush to independence gathers momentum.
I think on DARPA, Cummings is right. DARPA has been responsible for some of the most influential inventions of today. A UK version would be welcome (and what has happened with Graphene?)
Trump is very upset about the French cemetery story
They issued a rebuttal email that claims the choppers couldn't fly, so there would be a motorcade instead, which Trump didn't take...
The thing is whether the truth is exactly as reported by Atlantic or not, it rings true. Trump tweeting furiously about it just makes sure everybody hears about it.
Generally, I think there seems to be a good propaganda case for making claims that have inaccuracies and exaggerations, trying to get the other side to make a big fuss about the innaccuracies thus drawing everyone's attention to the gist of the story.
I'm not saying the Atlantic story is inaccurate, though it is a bit hearsay-ish.
I have never respected the DUP and seeing Tweets like that just make me think even more than I will never shed a crocodile tear about Boris screwing over the DUP with the Brexit deal.
I hope the SNP get independence not out of any anger with Scotland or desire to see Scotland go, but simply because I think its in Scotland's best interests. If I was a Scot I would vote SNP/Yes despite being a right winger.
I hope that NI goes in part because I want rid of NI. I despise the IRA and loathe its sympathisers at the time, I would never have backed Irish unification pre-peace process but now? I want rid of its troubles, I want rid of its fanaticism and religion, the DUP and Sinn Fein and . . . let them be Ireland's problem, we've dealt with them long enough.
In the words of someone who probably shouldn't be brought up in discussions about Ireland: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Well I am a Tory and remain a staunch Unionist.
Ripping the country in two with border posts and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland, inevitable after a No Deal Brexit or even a basic FTA with the EU would not do us any good, Scotland would effectively be an EU colony in the British Isles.
It would also be the end of the United Kingdom, we would become simply England and Wales overnight and as for Northern Ireland I would happily give away the Catholic and Sinn Fein, Remain voting counties on the Irish border like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic of Ireland but in Protestant County Antrim every MP is DUP and every local authority voted Leave and it wants to remain with us.
England, Wales and Antrim would be fine with me, but the UK staying together best of all and that requires unity between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland
I'm not sure that Scotland and NI going would be the end of the United Kingdom is that great an argument to make to someone who has just said that Scotland and NI should go.
In the event NI goes so will Antrim just like how London left the EU.
It would not just be the end of the name of the country and the economic relationship remaining the same with free trade and no borders, there would be customs posts and tariffs between England and Scotland as a result of a hard Brexit and Scotland voting for independence and to return to the EU.
Antrim will not go, the dominant party in Antrim, the DUP, wants to stay part of the UK and not join the Republic of Ireland, the dominant party in London, Labour, does not want to rejoin the EU and leave the UK
It doesn't matter what the dominant party of Antrim wants. The dominant party of Merseyside wanted to stay in the EU. But Merseyside has left along with the rest of England.
If NI unifies that is it Antrim will have lost. That is democracy. It is also international law under the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory you could separate Antrim out, after all that was the reason Ulster was created in the first place. But Ulster is Ulster because it was deemed just about economically viable to be worth separating it out, that isn't going to be the case with Antrim.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
HYUFD thinks that Antrim will be separated out. It won't.
The Good Friday Agreement is explicit on Irish unification if it is voted for. Separating out anything would violate the Good Friday Agreement and there isn't a snowballs chance in the Death Valley of it happening.
Oh I can assure you it will.
The Good Friday Agreement simply means the Catholic and Sinn Fein bits can rejoin the Republic and maybe even Down, every seat in Antrim however is DUP and the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement anyway and Antrim also voted Leave.
Antrim would overwhelmingly vote against reunification even if a border poll occurred and would stay united with England and Wales or even declare UDI rather than be forced into the Republic against its will (although alternatively we could ship the Orange Order and all the Protestants in Antrim back to Scotland and thus kill 2 birds with one stone)
You are insane.
Please cite a single thing from the Good Friday Agreement that says NI can be repartitioned. 🙄
DUP voters voted against the Good Friday Agreement and the DUP are the majority party in Antrim, if so they can say it applied only to Northern Ireland not the newly declared independent County of Antrim with Iain Paisley Jnr likely doing an Ian Smith in Rhodesia and declaring UDI if necessary
It's a good idea - the fact that we are still verifying identity with UTILITY BILLS is completely ridiculous, as though Thames Water had unique insight into who was who.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
I'm pro ID cards. I'll support that if it happens even under the charlatan Johnson.
ID cards, like lie detector tests, are illiberal, causes more problems, and are the tools of Satan.
Well I don't think so. Big practical benefits, philosophically sound, and imo the threat to liberty is largely illusory. People get overly precious and paranoid about it. Bet 100% of those nutty Trafalgar Square demonstrators are implacably opposed to ID cards.
The problem isn't the cards themselves. The problem with the previous proposal was that it was to be used as part of a system to link all your personal information together and distribute it.
So, a bod at the council would be able to search on "kinabalu". As part of an investigation on you not putting your re-cycling in the right bins. And getting your financial and medical records in the results......
Does not worry me. Paranoia.
Fair enough. I am a semi-expert hacker as it happens, and I have just looked you up. I find that you have a criminal record, you invest heavily on porn sites in working hours, and you have four fatherless children by different women. Would you really want that kind of information about you to be freely available to all and sundry?
We heard the exact same thing last year and you're reacting in the exact same way. Is there a tiny part that remembers that certainty?
That doesn't mean we should be complacent about the prospect of no deal, but why are you so certain this time you're right when you, and I, were wrong before about what he wants?
No deal is his only option.
Surrender brings back the Brexit party, and, together with mounting anger over other matters such as immigration, a massive problem for the tories. Ten points in the polls overnight and guaranteed obliteration at the next election.
We already read MPs some are planning to veto parts of his budget. Surrender to the EU could see Johnson effectively lose his 80 seat majority overnight and an election could ensue well before 2024.
The strength of feeling is that high, I reckon.
Underestimating the Great Man. He was able to sell his last surrender deal - leaving NI in the EU - as a triumph. He will think he can do it again.
... The Brexit party may yet revive on the basis that No Deal is "not the Brexit we voted for"
They'd be right, of course. Brexit voters were promised that the UK would retain tariff-free, friction-free access to EU markets. There is absolutely no way that crashing out in a chaotic No Deal can be construed as the Brexit anyone voted for.
This is not about economics, it never was, it isn;t now, and it never will be. Next to what they see as ceding control of waters and fish to a foreign power in perpetuity, EU market access is nothing in the mind of the brexiteer. Nothing. Its paperwork. Its a footnote. Its the terms and conditions you never read.
Johnson may be lazy dithering and duplicitous but he understands that. And so do most conservative MPs.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
I don't agree. We have a seat based democracy.
But we have accepted that a referendum of the people is the correct way to resolve questions as fundamental as this. Otherwise Salmond might just as well have declared independence with his majority in Holyrood and not bothered with a referendum in the first place.
Sturgeon herself said that there had to be good evidence that the Scottish people had changed their mind about this. I am suggesting what that good evidence might be. It's not perfect because the turnout in the Scottish elections is significantly smaller than for the referendum but it is the best we can have.
Absolutely a referendum would be the only way to resolve this. Simply holding a new referendum doesn't make Scotland independent, they'd still need to win it.
A government seeking a mandate to hold a second referendum winning an election would provide that evidence.
Of course it cuts both ways too. In the unlikely event that pro second referendum parties get a majority of voters but the anti independence parties end up with more seats then they can vote down a second referendum.
I think on DARPA, Cummings is right. DARPA has been responsible for some of the most influential inventions of today. A UK version would be welcome (and what has happened with Graphene?)
No
Most of our current cool stuff came from Xerox, a private company.
I've said before that the Supreme Court ruling that IndyRef2 must go ahead is a real risk, and they have a taste for overruling Boris as well.
James Forsyth's suggestion on how to play this is very instructive. Essential reading.
I agree with most of that but I don't agree that an SNP majority next May is sufficient. If they combined with the other parties in favour of an early referendum (principally the Greens at the moment) get more than 50% of the vote then the case for a referendum becomes unarguable for the reasons Curtice sets out but if the majority of votes are for parties opposed to a second referendum that is a different matter, even if they have a minority of seats.
David, do you mean neccessary in place of sufficient ? As read your first and second sentences are directly contradictory.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am distinguishing between having a majority in the Scottish Parliament and having a majority of the votes actually cast. So, to take 2011 as an example, the SNP got 45.4% and the Greens 4.4% making a total of 49.8% whilst the Unionists got 50.2% even although the SNP got an overall majority. In 2016 the SNP/Green share of the vote was down, indeed there has never been a majority of the votes for independence seeking parties.
Normally that doesn't matter and the SNP have been in government as a result but for this binary choice of another referendum it does seem to me that evidence that a majority of Scots are voting for independence seeking parties is the evidence we need that there is a demand in Scotland for another referendum.
Since the case for a referendum based on a Holyrood vote is a moral one, clearly if there is a majority of votes for a referendum the moral case is stronger. Doesn't shift the legal case one iota.
True but I do agree with what Curtice said about the question of a second referendum being dependent upon the views of the Scottish people, not what the SNP said last time out. The Scottish people are not bound by what they said and are free to choose.
I think on DARPA, Cummings is right. DARPA has been responsible for some of the most influential inventions of today. A UK version would be welcome (and what has happened with Graphene?)
I could be persuaded, but I'm not convinced that the EU would block this kind of R&D funding. Really? And don't other countries drive a country mile through State Aid rules all the time?
The disjoint between the polling in swing states like Michigan and the betting markets is quite perplexing. Certainly the betting markets give the impression of fighting the last war. 538 has Trump with a 30% chance of winning, that feels about right for now.
I think there's a 30% chance of a narrow Trump win, a 40% chance of a narrow Biden win, and a 30% chance of a big Biden win.
We are spookily at one. Although I am expressing it thus -
Biden is twice as likely to win as Trump and he has a good chance of a big win whereas a Trump win can only be close.
This is why I have bought Biden EC supremacy at 28 as my route to riches.
You know my views on this, I think Trump will win a majority. In fact, I think he will win more EC votes than last time. So selling Biden on the EC spread looks very tasty.
We heard the exact same thing last year and you're reacting in the exact same way. Is there a tiny part that remembers that certainty?
That doesn't mean we should be complacent about the prospect of no deal, but why are you so certain this time you're right when you, and I, were wrong before about what he wants?
No deal is his only option.
Surrender brings back the Brexit party, and, together with mounting anger over other matters such as immigration, a massive problem for the tories. Ten points in the polls overnight and guaranteed obliteration at the next election.
We already read MPs some are planning to veto parts of his budget. Surrender to the EU could see Johnson effectively lose his 80 seat majority overnight and an election could ensue well before 2024.
The strength of feeling is that high, I reckon.
Underestimating the Great Man. He was able to sell his last surrender deal - leaving NI in the EU - as a triumph. He will think he can do it again.
Excising NI and having only NI subject to the EU was a triumph because non of his MPs represent NI.
What part of that are you struggling to understand?
Comments
Superb woman, let's have her kind back please
Left-wingers have been writing letters like that about conservative appointments for over 30 years.
I guess leftwingers are going to stop opposing Tony Abbott as soon as they find out that Casino_Royale is onto them.
She would dismiss it as Project Fear, and none of the Brexiteers could deny her
Rudd - 2 years and 303 days
Gillard - 3 years and 3 days
Abbott - 1 year and 362 days
Turnbull - 2 years and 343 days
Morrison (incumbent) - 2 years and 10 days and counting.
New DG certainly making his mark in the first few days. The BBC higher-ups might not realise it yet, but the new way of thinking is the only shot they have at keeping something that looks like a licence fee rather than a subscription model.
If safe and secure investment opportunities (for pension funds, insurance companies, etc) are sparse, as they would be if the entire world is affected and our economy shrinks, then Government gilts and bonds are attractive. So we can borrow more - in these conditions.
as long as we don't look too profligate and uncaring, of course. That could lead to inflating out, and that's when investors would get cold feet and demand higher interest rates or not buy bonds at all. There are plenty of other countries out there who could be more secure deals under those conditions.
Commenting on a tweet or facebook story is often the wrong approach - it would be far better to completely ignore it.
England cannot hold back democratic free will and self-determination. Support for those things is supposed to be what this country is fundamentally about. Its the same with NI - if the people of Ulster want to remain in the UK they are welcome. If they want independence or unification with the Republic they are welcome.
A loose federation or commonwealth arrangement for these Isles might suit everyone better. Not that any politician has the brains to propose such a thing.
Whether the Government is so free of urgent business as to welcome a new controversy is another question.
Along with an editorial:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/03/the-guardian-view-on-boris-johnson-and-the-bbc-its-our-fight-too
Biden is twice as likely to win as Trump and he has a good chance of a big win whereas a Trump win can only be close.
This is why I have bought Biden EC supremacy at 28 as my route to riches.
Also most NI Protestants / Loyalists I know support Scotland far more than England. I suspect were Scotland to separate they would have little reason to remain part of the UK.
As I'm sure I've commented on before if Scotland went (and I expect it to) Ireland would reunite shortly afterwards as staying in what was left of the UK would make little sense except in subsidy terms.
It really is that simple.
https://twitter.com/VOAStevenson/status/1301533497417502720
Did Spain try anything like this? They should.
Giants On Clay Feet – COVID-19, infection control, and public health laboratory networks in England, the US, and (West-)Germany (1945-2020)
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/uv57t/
But a starting point has to be that if there’s a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and an NI Assembly, there must also be a similar arrangement for England.
May seemed to have a vision only for using Brexit and immigration as a means for achieving a landslide.
Cameron talked about the big society for a while, but did anything come of it? The plans were left to his ministers who implemented austerity, hostile environments, NHS reorganisation, universal credit, probation privatisation and other sundry personal projects to our continuing cost.
Brown was famously assumed to have spent a decade devising a master plan for No. 10 while in No. 11, but when he made the move there was nothing there.
Blair arguably took the art of winning power for its own sake to a purists perfection.
It would be easy to say that Major was mired in a constant struggle to survive and had no opportunity to implement a plan. But in comparison to those who came later I see a bit more in the way of pursuing a plan, to privatise so much before the oncoming tidal wave that the Thatcherite consensus would be as deeply embedded as possible.
So we come to Thatcher, the last British PM who came to office with a clear plan of what she wanted to achieve (in her terms something like: free business from the unions and the state, free individuals from reliance on the state) and managed to achieve it (NUM smashed, myriad privatisations, right to buy).
Johnson is thoroughly ordinary in this respect, even though he has been so unusual in so many others.
Surrender brings back the Brexit party, and, together with mounting anger over other matters such as immigration, a massive problem for the tories. Ten points in the polls overnight and guaranteed obliteration at the next election.
We already read MPs some are planning to veto parts of his budget. Surrender to the EU could see Johnson effectively lose his 80 seat majority overnight and an election could ensue well before 2024.
The strength of feeling is that high, I reckon.
Imagine if Boris made Douglas Ross chief executive of Scotland with the power to overrule Holyrood and that is basically the equivalent
They richly deserve to be chucked out.
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1301704431176736768
The Good Friday Agreement is explicit on Irish unification if it is voted for. Separating out anything would violate the Good Friday Agreement and there isn't a snowballs chance in the Death Valley of it happening.
Scotland persistently runs a deficit on the current account of its balance of payments of around 10% of GDP (£16bn). Currently this deficit is settled by the UK. With independence, Scotland would be responsible for financing its twin fiscal and current account deficits.....
The combination of no external adjustment mechanism and large-scale borrowing in a foreign currency, along with a unitary probability of devaluation, is simply a recipe for national bankruptcy.
Prof Ronald MacDonald
Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/02/an-economic-recipe-to-bankrupt-scotland?__twitter_impression=true
Yes, I know.
The problem was the ludicrous idea of unifying all the government databases, and spreading the access to the aggregated data far and wide. Imagine a world where the Police National Computer system brings up your financial, tax and health records when they do a search*....
It got to the point that senior civil servants pushing the project were demanding that they (and their families) would have their data sequestrated in a special, limited access part of the system. A part of the system designated for "VIPs" - literally.
What is forgotten was that David Davis actually proposed (IIRC) a sensible version of a national ID card as a counter proposal. A photo ID, whose id number would be used across government systems. Used online, it would have been SSO system.
*For those that don't know - it is/was a common thing that PNC operators would sell records to journalists/private investigators for 50 pounds a time.
Normally that doesn't matter and the SNP have been in government as a result but for this binary choice of another referendum it does seem to me that evidence that a majority of Scots are voting for independence seeking parties is the evidence we need that there is a demand in Scotland for another referendum.
Tories who are planning to vote against a Covid budget are not going to vote for a No Deal Brexit budget instead.
The Brexit party may yet revive on the basis that No Deal is "not the Brexit we voted for"
He only needs to last another 2 years to overtake Gillard too and become Australia's longest serving PM since John Howard, who along with Bob Hawke is the best Australian PM of recent decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election
https://twitter.com/greenmiranda/status/1301805369275158528
You're both arguing moral cases, not legal ones.
Johnson can simply say "no", and until the SNP persuade enough MPs in Westminster to vote for a Section 30 order, they're stuck.
May well not be wise, but that's the law.
So, a bod at the council would be able to search on "kinabalu". As part of an investigation on you not putting your re-cycling in the right bins. And getting your financial and medical records in the results......
The Good Friday Agreement simply means the Catholic and Sinn Fein bits can rejoin the Republic and maybe even Down, every seat in Antrim however is DUP and the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement anyway and Antrim also voted Leave.
Antrim would overwhelmingly vote against reunification even if a border poll occurred and would stay united with England and Wales or even declare UDI rather than be forced into the Republic against its will (although alternatively we could ship the Orange Order and all the Protestants in Antrim back to Scotland and thus kill 2 birds with one stone)
Eating out for one meal once or twice per month doesn't cause obesity.
Eating junk food every single day does cause obesity.
You'll soon become an unperson.
Given the way the number of jumped arseholes work for the police, I fear your confidence is misplaced.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52358114
Please cite a single thing from the Good Friday Agreement that says NI can be repartitioned. 🙄
Under the ID card proposal, IRRC, they wanted to take biometric data. And not hash it. Because the police wanted it, not for ID, but as records.....
So that they could lose a DVD of everyones eyescans and fingerprints on a train, I presume.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7104945.stm
Sturgeon herself said that there had to be good evidence that the Scottish people had changed their mind about this. I am suggesting what that good evidence might be. It's not perfect because the turnout in the Scottish elections is significantly smaller than for the referendum but it is the best we can have.
Yeah sure if they want to do that I'd fully support it. Their choice.
An independent Scotland would either choose, or be forced by markets to adopt, a separate currency sharply devalued wrt sterling. That should where discussions about the currency start. Let's hope we get to hear them before the gadarene rush to independence gathers momentum.
Johnson may be lazy dithering and duplicitous but he understands that. And so do most conservative MPs.
A government seeking a mandate to hold a second referendum winning an election would provide that evidence.
Of course it cuts both ways too. In the unlikely event that pro second referendum parties get a majority of voters but the anti independence parties end up with more seats then they can vote down a second referendum.
Most of our current cool stuff came from Xerox, a private company.
Government record of picking winners is woeful
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/no-deal-brexit-looms-after-boris-johnson-seeks-to-double-fishing-quota-mwk785bhd
Maybe those who are more expert can enlighten us?
What part of that are you struggling to understand?