Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News refutes Team Trump’s voter fraud assertions – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,431

    Blair did it to the UK and you still voted for him
    Blair was the Best Prime Minister-by a distance-that has held office in my lifetime!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,775
    It is remarkable that you can back Joe Biden at 1.1 to win the presidential election after he has won the presidential election. A risk free 10% return on capital in a matter of weeks at the most and possibly within days.

    This is essentially a bet on whether the US remains a democracy or is heading for a combination of fascism, anarchy and civil war. I'd finished betting on WH2020 but I simply have to do this one. It's basic rationality vs rank paranoia. Biden should be 1.01 and even that is too high because it should have been settled by now.

    Any case, free money. Thank you paranoiacs.
  • MrEd said:

    On topic, don't know if this has been flagged but another example of Fox breaking with Trump:

    https://www.wgowam.com/news/sources-fox-news-suspends-justice-with-judge-jeanine-over-trump/

    Am I reading this right?

    The New York Times reported Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid, the New York Post, has shifted its tone on Trump as a top editor has planned his own exit from the reputed oldest newspaper in American history.

    “Col Allan, a wizard there, says he plans to retire next year,” the Times reported Saturday.


    The New York Post employs 'wizards'? Is this an Americanism for 'editor'? Never heard of that before.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020

    To be fair, Boris Johnson is absolutely stupid enough to allow a second referendum on Scottish separation, vain enough to think he'd be an asset for the union side, and incompetent enough to screw up the negotiations to such an extent everywhere north of the Watford Gap becomes part of Greater Scotland.

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it, it is Westminster that has to approve the legislation for it he himself cannot do it alone and even if the SNP won a Holyrood majority next year and it was allowed and Scotland did vote for independence the Scottish borders for example could remain part of the UK given it would likely vote heavily No
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,655
    RobD said:

    I think some were speculating about this yesterday

    https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1325779872124383232

    That's possible, I guess, but Pfizer would not have know that in advance.

    The drug companies don't look under the hood every day like that.
    What had happened was Pfizer deciding not to go ahead with the first planned interim analysis at 32 cases, as there had been significant doubts about the statistical significance of results from such a small number.

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
    ...That study design, as well as those of other drug makers, came under fire from experts who worried that, even if it was statistically valid, these interim analyses would not provide enough data when a vaccine could be given to billions of people.

    In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study. It’s not known how many were in the vaccine arm, but it would have to be nine or fewer.

    Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,079
    This is how insane Brexit is. Polly Toynbee is talking sense...

    https://twitter.com/pollytoynbee/status/1326108170675163136
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it, it is Westminster that has to approve the legislation for it he himself cannot do it and even if it was allowed and Scotland did vote for independence the Scottish borders for example could remain part of the UK given it would likely vote heavily No
    Isn't a Section 30 order by definition an administrative order rather than an Act?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,079
    HYUFD said:

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it

    But, but, but, 80 seat majority...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it, it is Westminster that has to approve the legislation for it he himself cannot do it alone and even if the SNP won a Holyrood majority next year and it was allowed and Scotland did vote for independence the Scottish borders for example could remain part of the UK given it would likely vote heavily No
    You forgot the tanks.
  • HYUFD said:

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it, it is Westminster that has to approve the legislation for it he himself cannot do it and even if it was allowed and Scotland did vote for independence the Scottish borders for example could remain part of the UK given it would likely vote heavily No
    Tory MPs will block it against a 3 line whip to support it?

    You do understand how morally shallow so many of these Tory MPs are don't you. They not only voted against feeding hungry kids as commanded they went over the top in the media defending it, only to then say they were in full support of the government's u-turn a few weeks later and insist there was no u-turn.

    They will do whatever they are told without thought or question.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,712

    To be fair, Boris Johnson is absolutely stupid enough to allow a second referendum on Scottish separation, vain enough to think he'd be an asset for the union side, and incompetent enough to screw up the negotiations to such an extent everywhere north of the Watford Gap becomes part of Greater Scotland.

    And most people north of the Watford Gap would readily agree that their new leadership would be more competent.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    FYI, from Newsweek in 2016. I hadn't realised this but imagine if this happened now....

    2000: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore

    Al Gore campaign aide Bob Beckel intended to make that moral case to Florida's electors—and perhaps electors in other states—who could be convinced to follow the will of the people. Gore did not need all of the state's electors, just four.

    For that matter, he didn't think it had to be limited to Florida. He thought demonstrating statistics to prove Gore's win could sway enough of the George W. Bush electors to switch their votes since they were not legally bound.

    Beckel insisted afterward he never had plans to try to blackmail electors to collect Gore votes, which he thought the article implied. But in an interview on Fox News on November 17, 2000, Beckel said: "I'm trying to kidnap electors. Whatever it takes." Beckel later explained what the Founders wanted: "The idea was that electors, early on, were to be lobbied."

    Pro-Gore websites even started popping up, listing the names and contact information of Republican electors across the country, asking the public to barrage them with demands to vote for Gore and follow the will of the people.

    Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nichols sent an email to supporters asking them to "Help Stop Democratic Electoral Tampering." Responding to the chairman, Beckel said: "The Constitution gives me the right to send a piece of mail to an elector."

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020
    Carnyx said:

    Isn't a Section 30 order by definition an administrative order rather than an Act?
    Tory MPs would I expect topple Boris by vote of no confidence if he even considered doing it and replace him with Rishi Sunak as PM and I would fully support that
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Tory MPs will block it against a 3 line whip to support it?

    You do understand how morally shallow so many of these Tory MPs are don't you. They not only voted against feeding hungry kids as commanded they went over the top in the media defending it, only to then say they were in full support of the government's u-turn a few weeks later and insist there was no u-turn.

    They will do whatever they are told without thought or question.
    Justr checked. **** all to do with what Tory MPs think. Only matters what Mr J and Mr C think.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/30
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,321
    HYUFD said:
    The answer is surely strengthened. If Biden is as opposed to international cooperation, and is as willing as Trump to attack traditional US allies, I would be extremely surprised.

    Johnson resigning would probably also strengthen the relationship a bit.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Am I reading this right?

    The New York Times reported Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid, the New York Post, has shifted its tone on Trump as a top editor has planned his own exit from the reputed oldest newspaper in American history.

    “Col Allan, a wizard there, says he plans to retire next year,” the Times reported Saturday.


    The New York Post employs 'wizards'? Is this an Americanism for 'editor'? Never heard of that before.
    Maybe Harry Potter is the new editor there? I always thought Daniel Radcliffe was a bit of a lefty.
  • Nigelb said:

    That's possible, I guess, but Pfizer would not have know that in advance.

    The drug companies don't look under the hood every day like that.
    What had happened was Pfizer deciding not to go ahead with the first planned interim analysis at 32 cases, as there had been significant doubts about the statistical significance of results from such a small number.

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
    ...That study design, as well as those of other drug makers, came under fire from experts who worried that, even if it was statistically valid, these interim analyses would not provide enough data when a vaccine could be given to billions of people.

    In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study. It’s not known how many were in the vaccine arm, but it would have to be nine or fewer.

    Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday...
    So its not the case that they hit 62 and chose not to look - its the case that the pandemic in the USA under Trump is so bad that by the time they settled on 62 it had actually already hit 94.
  • Mr. eek, it's a great shame so many make long term decisions based on such short term, ephemeral factors.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs would I expect topple Boris by vote of no confidence if he even considered doing it and replace him with Rishi Sunak as PM
    You said clearly 'legislation' for MPs to approve. Quite different thing.

    Moving the goalposts again. Like retreating from the Oder-Neisse line to the Tiergarten Flakturm.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992

    Tory MPs will block it against a 3 line whip to support it?

    You do understand how morally shallow so many of these Tory MPs are don't you. They not only voted against feeding hungry kids as commanded they went over the top in the media defending it, only to then say they were in full support of the government's u-turn a few weeks later and insist there was no u-turn.

    They will do whatever they are told without thought or question.
    No they won't, Boris will be toppled if he does especially as it would likely follow a poor set of local election results next year, Tory MPs are not going to risk their seats and the Union
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs would I expect topple Boris by vote of no confidence if he even considered doing it and replace him with Rishi Sunak as PM
    .. and if they get a permanent reduction in the majority they need in the future?
  • F1: 2021 calendar, now with added concentration camps and gay beheadings:
    https://twitter.com/GrandPrixEvents/status/1326104630951075841
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,655
    RobD said:

    Why would they have 62 as a threshold originally if it isn't significant enough? Some shenanigans going on. ;)
    That is to misunderstand what happened.
    The role of pharmaceutical companies is safely to develop drugs, not to meet election deadlines.
    There was widespread industry criticism of Pfizer's original plans to have an interim review at 32 cases, and they clearly changed their minds - quite possibly because they feared political pressure to launch the vaccine on inadequate evidence.
    (And it should be noted that every other vaccine developer did not plan to take an early look at the data in this way.)

    Having decided to modify the trial protocol, the number of cases then ramped up very quickly - you might have noted the rapid increase in reported infections in the US over the last couple of weeks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020
    Carnyx said:

    .. and if they get a permanent reduction in the majority they need in the future?
    They care more about their own seats than the government's majority and Sunak is now both more popular in England as well as Scotland than Boris is
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Dura_Ace said:

    Neither of them are an Out-And-Proud Level 99 Trumpaloompa like you (who would lick Trump where he shits) but their sympathies are obvious.

    It's not about who they would vote for, it's more about the vibe.
    I wouldn't lick his sh1t @Dura_Ace it's rather unhygenic and I wouldn't imagine tastes nice (but tell me if I'm wrong).

    On point, though, both have said they wouldn't vote for him and have criticised him, which should be good enough for people to accept. Or are you now an expert "vibe reader" who can determine the truth when others can't?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    They care about their own seats not the government's majority and Sunak is now both more popular in England as well as Scotland than Boris is
    My tortoise would be more popular than Mr J. And it's deceased.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    Carnyx said:

    You said clearly 'legislation' for MPs to approve. Quite different thing.

    Moving the goalposts again. Like retreating from the Oder-Neisse line to the Tiergarten Flakturm.
    The Scotland Act could also be amended given the Tory majority
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,655

    I supported Democrats across the board in these elections. I'm disappointed by the Senate results, hope the Democrats pick up both GA seats, have advocated statehood for PR and DC and said the Supreme Court needs fixing with extra Justices being inaugurated to make up for the GOPs shenanigans and Kavanaugh.

    How's that vibe for you?

    (I 100% would oppose AOC or Sanders style Democrats but the right of the Democrats are closer to my style of Tories than the GOP is right now.)
    For which, much credit to you.
    Irrespective of your EU obsessions. :smile:
  • Dido flailing in front of the select committee at the moment.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,673



    I'm sorry if I don't neatly fit into your stereotype box, like Philip, but I wouldn't have voted for Trump.

    I probably would have voted Republican for the Senate and almost definitely would have done for the House.

    The data shows there was a significant number of Republicans who thought the same.

    Yes, it was one of the most encouraging signs of the election - despite extreme polarisation, there are things that people will not do even if it helps their own side.

    I agree that victors gloating is always unpleasant, by the way.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    The Scotland Act could also be amended given the Tory majority
    It is a Section 30 order thaty is being discussed today. Not fourth and fifth order hypotheticals.

    Anjd consider the impact of doing what you suggest.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,655
    edited November 2020

    So its not the case that they hit 62 and chose not to look - its the case that the pandemic in the USA under Trump is so bad that by the time they settled on 62 it had actually already hit 94.
    Pretty well. yes.

    Note that it won't be until later this month that they have sufficient safety data to formally apply for FDA authorisation.
  • Nigelb said:

    For which, much credit to you.
    Irrespective of your EU obsessions. :smile:
    I'm not that obsessed by the EU. I genuinely supported Remain for a very long time and could have voted Remain. I was torn how to vote in the Referendum and decided on the balance of probabilities we were best to leave but it was a close call for me.

    I feel if we're going to leave we should leave properly. No point going through all this only not to change anything. But I'd have been OK with us not leaving.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    Carnyx said:

    It is a Section 30 order thaty is being discussed today. Not fourth and fifth order hypotheticals.

    Anjd consider the impact of doing what you suggest.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, nationalists should consider themselves lucky they even got one referendum then, the Tory government could have followed the Madrid line under Rajoy and banned it and arrested Sturgeon for sedition.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    It is remarkable that you can back Joe Biden at 1.1 to win the presidential election after he has won the presidential election. A risk free 10% return on capital in a matter of weeks at the most and possibly within days.

    This is essentially a bet on whether the US remains a democracy or is heading for a combination of fascism, anarchy and civil war. I'd finished betting on WH2020 but I simply have to do this one. It's basic rationality vs rank paranoia. Biden should be 1.01 and even that is too high because it should have been settled by now.

    Any case, free money. Thank you paranoiacs.

    I would have thought with Trump still in office, @kinabalu , you would have thought fascism was still on the agenda.

    What a touching faith in US democracy :)

    On point though, you are absolutely right - it should be a steal. Has his price come out though?
  • HYUFD said:

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, nationalists should consider themselves lucky they even got one referendum then, the Tory government could have followed the Madrid line under Rajoy and banned it and arrested Sturgeon for sedition.

    You're a repugnant antidemocrat with fascist jackboot tendencies. You are a disgrace to the Tory party.
  • HYUFD said:

    No they won't, Boris will be toppled if he does especially as it would likely follow a poor set of local election results next year, Tory MPs are not going to risk their seats and the Union
    The current Tory Party has no interest in the Union. And again I refer you to the cowardly custards that are the 2019 crop of Tory MPs. No spine. No brain. No morals. Will repeat whatever they are told to repeat. "Won't risk their seats" - what like the 6 Greater Manchester MPs who signed that letter that Manchester should settle for less money than it needs? They are all GONE at the next election - note that old hands like Brady didn't sign the letter.

    Spineless sheep beholden to Shagger. They will do what they are told. And if that means defending war with Eurasia today and then war with Eastasia tomorrow they will do it. They've already done it over feeding hungry kids.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,801

    A semi-detached status would have been codified in a new EU treaty with legal force (opt-outs from ever closer union, crime & justice, protections against eurozone block majority voting, restrictions on welfare/residency benefits with a national red card veto on some areas of importance to us, and a mechanism for some powers to flow back too by agreement) that would have settled the issue for at least another 20-25 years.

    I know you don't like that and you didn't even like the opt-outs the Brits already had but that was the realpolitik required to retain us as a member with popular consent.

    You have to remember that Brexiteers were a small minority until fairly recently, including me.

    It was the experience over Lisbon and the failure to offer meaningful reform after that that led many of us to conclude it was time to put up or shut up.
    Basically your argument is that with different choreography you would have enthusiastically supported Dave's Deal.
  • HYUFD said:

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, nationalists should consider themselves lucky they even got one referendum then, the Tory government could have followed the Madrid line under Rajoy and banned it and arrested Sturgeon for sedition.

    Thankfully that is not for you to decide. And your attitude on this is utterly shameful.
  • Dido flailing in front of the select committee at the moment.

    Dido lamentable..
  • Thankfully that is not for you to decide. And your attitude on this is utterly shameful.
    Plus he's invented crimes that don't exist. Sedition isn't a crime in Scotland, so it would be interesting to know who is going to arrest Sturgeon for sedition when there is no law against sedition there.
  • Just for @HYUFD here is your typical 2019 Tory MP making a rational principled argument:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6O0P74ALLM
  • Carnyx said:

    Isn't a Section 30 order by definition an administrative order rather than an Act?
    It is, although it's an unusual type of statutory instrument in that it's subject to the "affirmative procedure" whereby it is voted on (but cannot be amended) by Parliament. It's been several decades, I think, since the affirmative procedure has come out with a "no". But there is a vote.

    The vast majority of SIs are subject to the "negative procedure" where they are laid for inspection for however many days it is, but there is not normally any vote unless a motion is brought to annul it, and I believe that would normally be held in the Delegated Legislation Committee rather than the House (although it's vanishingly rare anyway).
  • HYUFD said:

    No they won't, Boris will be toppled if he does especially as it would likely follow a poor set of local election results next year, Tory MPs are not going to risk their seats and the Union
    My Tory MP is the ultimate loyalist. When Cameron, May and now Boris says jump - he says how high. He was one who defended the policy on holiday meals and now says it is great that our Council will be delivering them over Christmas.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    The current Tory Party has no interest in the Union. And again I refer you to the cowardly custards that are the 2019 crop of Tory MPs. No spine. No brain. No morals. Will repeat whatever they are told to repeat. "Won't risk their seats" - what like the 6 Greater Manchester MPs who signed that letter that Manchester should settle for less money than it needs? They are all GONE at the next election - note that old hands like Brady didn't sign the letter.

    Spineless sheep beholden to Shagger. They will do what they are told. And if that means defending war with Eurasia today and then war with Eastasia tomorrow they will do it. They've already done it over feeding hungry kids.
    Therte is actually some polling evidence that Tory voters are much less worried about saving the Union than some like to think - given the persistent narrative of Scots scroungers, etc. etc. I think the last time this came up on PB it emerged that it was actually LD voters of all people who were most worried about saving the union!


  • MangoMango Posts: 1,031



    Mr Tokyo is a Europhile/Globalist who thinks that under absolutely no circumstances should politicians compromise with the electorate.

    And people who use the term "globalist" are being played by populists. Lots of them end up spouting all kinds of anti-Semitic tripe soon after. Tread carefully.
  • Sunder Katwala, who has rather different politics to me, has got closest to articulating the trouble progressive internationalists have over on Twitter. Very bright:

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1325911170100809728?s=19

    Basically, our future needs to be strongly rooted in our past and we need to stop seeing national identity and patriotism as problem.
    If you root your opinion of Britain in a careful, neutral reading of history, the resulting feelings would not be patriotism. Patriotism tends to result from an overemphasis on good things and sweeping the bad under the carpet.

    Patriotism is not a problem, it is merely a symptom of selective focus.
  • madmacs said:

    My Tory MP is the ultimate loyalist. When Cameron, May and now Boris says jump - he says how high. He was one who defended the policy on holiday meals and now says it is great that our Council will be delivering them over Christmas.
    Those aren't contradictory to be fair given the government's position was they'd given money to the Councils that could be used to deliver them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992

    The current Tory Party has no interest in the Union. And again I refer you to the cowardly custards that are the 2019 crop of Tory MPs. No spine. No brain. No morals. Will repeat whatever they are told to repeat. "Won't risk their seats" - what like the 6 Greater Manchester MPs who signed that letter that Manchester should settle for less money than it needs? They are all GONE at the next election - note that old hands like Brady didn't sign the letter.

    Spineless sheep beholden to Shagger. They will do what they are told. And if that means defending war with Eurasia today and then war with Eastasia tomorrow they will do it. They've already done it over feeding hungry kids.
    They do, polling of Tory members and voters show both support banning indyref2 and respecting the once in a generation 2014 vote
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited November 2020

    It is, although it's an unusual type of statutory instrument in that it's subject to the "affirmative procedure" whereby it is voted on (but cannot be amended) by Parliament. It's been several decades, I think, since the affirmative procedure has come out with a "no". But there is a vote.

    The vast majority of SIs are subject to the "negative procedure" where they are laid for inspection for however many days it is, but there is not normally any vote unless a motion is brought to annul it, and I believe that would normally be held in the Delegated Legislation Committee rather than the House (although it's vanishingly rare anyway).
    Ah, thank you for that - very helpful. So it also depends what Labour and the LDs think, as well as the SNP. And the UUs and PC and others. Not just the Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020

    You're a repugnant antidemocrat with fascist jackboot tendencies. You are a disgrace to the Tory party.
    You were a Blair voter and a Farage voter and are not a conservative, your insults do not bother me at all
  • HYUFD said:

    You are a Farage voter and not a conservative, your insults do not bother me at all
    I don't know how many times I need to say I am not a Farage voter. I have never wanted or voted for Farage to hold any elected position. I have always opposed Farage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020

    Thankfully that is not for you to decide. And your attitude on this is utterly shameful.
    You are a libertarian not a Tory, so your views do not bother me at all, I merely said indyref2 was and will remain a once in a generation vote, I simply commented on how Rajoy banned even one Catalan referendum and arrested nationalist leaders for sedition as to what the Tory government could have done
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,163
    HYUFD said:

    You are a Farage voter and not a conservative, your insults do not bother me at all
    Should he f*ck off and join the Tories UKIP?
  • Mango said:

    And people who use the term "globalist" are being played by populists. Lots of them end up spouting all kinds of anti-Semitic tripe soon after. Tread carefully.
    I think he misspelled "globulist", John Loony is very persuasive
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992

    Plus he's invented crimes that don't exist. Sedition isn't a crime in Scotland, so it would be interesting to know who is going to arrest Sturgeon for sedition when there is no law against sedition there.
    Westminster remains the supreme lawmaker in the UK and treason is a crime UK wide
  • HYUFD said:

    You are a libertarian not a Tory, so your views do not bother me at all, I merely said indyref2 was and will remain a once in a generation vote, I simply commented on how Rajoy banned even one Catalan referendum and arrested nationalist leaders for sedition as what the Tory government could have done
    OK genius how could Sturgeon be arrested for "sedition" when "sedition" is not against the law in Scotland.

    IDIOT!

    Do laws not matter to you?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    edited November 2020
    New thread but we all enjoy the blue-on-blue food fights, feel free to carry it over onto the next one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    It is, although it's an unusual type of statutory instrument in that it's subject to the "affirmative procedure" whereby it is voted on (but cannot be amended) by Parliament. It's been several decades, I think, since the affirmative procedure has come out with a "no". But there is a vote.

    The vast majority of SIs are subject to the "negative procedure" where they are laid for inspection for however many days it is, but there is not normally any vote unless a motion is brought to annul it, and I believe that would normally be held in the Delegated Legislation Committee rather than the House (although it's vanishingly rare anyway).
    PS One very interesting point - it can't be amended, as you say. Back in the 2010s Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond negotiated the details before the order went through Pmt nem con (or at least without it being voted down - can't remember). Is this realistic with the current lot in London?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,933
    madmacs said:

    My Tory MP is the ultimate loyalist. When Cameron, May and now Boris says jump - he says how high. He was one who defended the policy on holiday meals and now says it is great that our Council will be delivering them over Christmas.
    He's not Guy Opperman is he? Cos if he isn't I believe I have you beaten.
  • HYUFD said:

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, nationalists should consider themselves lucky they even got one referendum then, the Tory government could have followed the Madrid line under Rajoy and banned it and arrested Sturgeon for sedition.

    You talk such tripe and nonsense over Scotland and it frightens me that you have anything to do with the conservative party, let alone chair a constituency

  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,321
    MrEd said:

    FYI, from Newsweek in 2016. I hadn't realised this but imagine if this happened now....

    2000: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore

    Al Gore campaign aide Bob Beckel intended to make that moral case to Florida's electors—and perhaps electors in other states—who could be convinced to follow the will of the people. Gore did not need all of the state's electors, just four.

    For that matter, he didn't think it had to be limited to Florida. He thought demonstrating statistics to prove Gore's win could sway enough of the George W. Bush electors to switch their votes since they were not legally bound.

    Beckel insisted afterward he never had plans to try to blackmail electors to collect Gore votes, which he thought the article implied. But in an interview on Fox News on November 17, 2000, Beckel said: "I'm trying to kidnap electors. Whatever it takes." Beckel later explained what the Founders wanted: "The idea was that electors, early on, were to be lobbied."

    Pro-Gore websites even started popping up, listing the names and contact information of Republican electors across the country, asking the public to barrage them with demands to vote for Gore and follow the will of the people.

    Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nichols sent an email to supporters asking them to "Help Stop Democratic Electoral Tampering." Responding to the chairman, Beckel said: "The Constitution gives me the right to send a piece of mail to an elector."

    Funny, I have heard of this Donald Trump character, but I have never heard of Beckel before.

    What was his role in the Gore campaign? His wiki entry makes no mention of Gore, and this article https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-10-op-18656-story.html BY Beckel from September 2000 describes him as
    "ROBERT G. BECKEL, A POLITICAL ANALYST, SERVED AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR WALTER F. MONDALE IN 1984"

    He does sound like a bit of a tosser.
    Sacked from Fox News twice - the second time for racism

    also:
    "In 2002 Beckel managed the campaign of Alan Blinken, the Democratic nominee for United States Senate in Idaho, until he resigned after being targeted for extortion by a prostitute."

    Is that the same guy? Because, like I said, I've never heard of him.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,505
    HYUFD said:

    You were a Blair voter and a Farage voter and are not a conservative, your insults do not bother me at all
    You have accused Philip of being an Orange Book Liberal before and now a Farage supporter. Those are mutually exclusive.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Westminster remains the supreme lawmaker in the UK and treason is a crime UK wide
    You said 'sedcition'. Not treason.
  • Carnyx said:

    Ah, thank you for that - very helpful. So it also depends what Labour and the LDs think, as well as the SNP. And the UUs and PC and others. Not just the Tories.
    Yes. As I say, it'd be extremely unusual to say the least for an "affirmative procedure" to come out with a "no". But, if it was ever going to happen, this is the sort of thing on which it might.

    Although since the SNP would surely be onside, Johnson could survive a huge rebellion even if Labour objected (and I don't think they would).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited November 2020

    OK genius how could Sturgeon be arrested for "sedition" when "sedition" is not against the law in Scotland.

    IDIOT!

    Do laws not matter to you?
    He's talking about 'treason' now. He'd probably try to get her on a parking offence.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,801
    Carnyx said:

    He's talking about 'treason' now. He'd probably try to get her on a parking offence.
    "Arrested for parking her tanks on the Tory Party's lawn."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    kjh said:

    You have accused Philip of being an Orange Book Liberal before and now a Farage supporter. Those are mutually exclusive.
    Either way he is not a Tory that is for certain
  • The typical bedwetting around the “special relationship” continues apace, I see. We must have this every time a new US President comes to power.

    Both countries have ingrained systems of co-operation and collaboration (much as the US does with other European allies). That will not change. Let us also debunk the myth that Trump was a friend of the UK. His relations with every Western European nation were dysfunctional and and the very best purely transactional (ie what was in it for him). We have nothing to fear from a President Biden. Indeed a US focused on improving relations with Western Europe, NATO, the UN etc, etc benefits us all in the long run.

    Do I think Biden and Boris have much in common? No. Do I think the relationship between the UK and the US will improve on a general basis? Absolutely.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    "Arrested for parking her tanks on the Tory Party's lawn."
    https://www.cityam.com/fitness-industry-rolls-orange-tank-into-parliament-square-in-lockdown-protest/
  • OK genius how could Sturgeon be arrested for "sedition" when "sedition" is not against the law in Scotland.

    IDIOT!

    Do laws not matter to you?
    He is a Shagger loyalist. He thinks the law is whatever Cummings declares it to be.

    "it was a once in a generation referendum end of conversation" is about as legal and relevant as Trump claiming the win in states he lost.

    As this government are about to find out, in the UK even the government cannot break its own laws. The Lords will continue to demolish the government's attempt to bin off the Withdrawal Agreement and with it the Good Friday Agreement. HYUFD will loyally claim the Lords have to back down as the government programme has supremacy, and the Lords will rightly point out that they are the ones defending said government programme against the government.

    It takes a special kind of wazzock to argue one minute that its unaffordable and morally wrong to feed hungry kids and the next minute that its great news that the government are to feed hungry kids and insist that the position hasn't changed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992

    Yes. As I say, it'd be extremely unusual to say the least for an "affirmative procedure" to come out with a "no". But, if it was ever going to happen, this is the sort of thing on which it might.

    Although since the SNP would surely be onside, Johnson could survive a huge rebellion even if Labour objected (and I don't think they would).
    If there was a huge rebellion Johnson would be toppled as Tory leader and PM within a week anyway, so he would back down to save his job
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020

    You talk such tripe and nonsense over Scotland and it frightens me that you have anything to do with the conservative party, let alone chair a constituency

    The Scottish Secretary Alister Jack just 4 days ago said there would be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years, I merely reflect the government line from the Minister concerned

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,505
    HYUFD said:

    Either way he is not a Tory that is for certain
    I thought Tories were supposed to be a broad church, probably with the two descriptions I gave at either end.
  • Carnyx said:

    PS One very interesting point - it can't be amended, as you say. Back in the 2010s Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond negotiated the details before the order went through Pmt nem con (or at least without it being voted down - can't remember). Is this realistic with the current lot in London?
    It's up to the Government how they arrive at the Order laid before Parliament and what input they get. I'd be surprised if they didn't involve the Scottish Government, but Cummings prides himself on being a massive arsehole, sorry I mean maverick genius convention-breaker, so who knows?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,276
    kinabalu said:

    It is remarkable that you can back Joe Biden at 1.1 to win the presidential election after he has won the presidential election. A risk free 10% return on capital in a matter of weeks at the most and possibly within days.

    This is essentially a bet on whether the US remains a democracy or is heading for a combination of fascism, anarchy and civil war. I'd finished betting on WH2020 but I simply have to do this one. It's basic rationality vs rank paranoia. Biden should be 1.01 and even that is too high because it should have been settled by now.

    Any case, free money. Thank you paranoiacs.

    I`ve been trawling through BF and Smarket prices all morning. The opportunities to pick up free money are astonishing.

    This morning I`ve taken 1.1 Dems to win Pennsylvania, 1.21 Biden to win by over 48.5 EVCs, 1.13 Biden to win Wisconsin.

    As I write, I think these are the best BF odds now available:

    1.19 Biden to win by over 48.5 EVCs (pays out even if he loses Arizona)
    1.1 Biden to win Wisconsin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020
    kjh said:

    I thought Tories were supposed to be a broad church, probably with the two descriptions I gave at either end.
    Broad church yes but you are expected to consistently vote Tory at least to be defined as a Tory, Philip voted for the Brexit Party last year at the European elections and for New Labour in 2001, as I said therefore Philip is not a Tory
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,505
    HYUFD said:

    Broad church yes but you are expected to consistently vote Tory at least to be defined as a Tory, Philip voted for the Brexit Party last year at the European elections and for New Labour in 2001, as I said therefore Philip is not a Tory
    What happened to principles? As discussed before you are not supporting a football team.

    If the LDs started to support Fascism or Communism I'm off. I joined them because of what I believe in, not because I like the colour Orange.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Who cares who is a Tory or if there is a referendum when none is in the offing or what decrepit old farts think of modern day events it’s all gone dead after the

    US election, time to take a breather.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kjh said:

    What happened to principles? As discussed before you are not supporting a football team.

    If the LDs started to support Fascism or Communism I'm off. I joined them because of what I believe in, not because I like the colour Orange.
    You would support blackpool
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,992
    edited November 2020
    kjh said:

    What happened to principles? As discussed before you are not supporting a football team.

    If the LDs started to support Fascism or Communism I'm off. I joined them because of what I believe in, not because I like the colour Orange.
    As an atheist republican who does not care about the Union, Philip does not even have any core Tory principles either ie support for the Church of England, the monarchy, the Union etc, at most he is a right leaning pro Brexit libertarian, he is not, never has been and never will be a Tory
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,505
    nichomar said:

    You would support blackpool
    There are limits.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,276
    edited November 2020
    HYUFD said:

    As an atheist republican who does not care about the Union, Philip does not even have any core Tory principles either ie support for the Church of England, the monarchy, the Union etc, at most he is a right leaning pro Brexit libertarian, he is not, never has been and never will be a Tory
    Yes, but this isn`t an insult is it. As discussed before, PT is a liberal verging on libertarian. Those that hold this ideology will be uncomfortable bedfellows with conservatives and many centre-ground liberals. They do not have a political party available that matches the ideology held.
  • HYUFD said:

    The Scottish Secretary Alister Jack just 4 days ago said there would be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years, I merely reflect the government line from the Minister concerned

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100
    So much for Parliament not being able to bind its' successor......

    There is a perfectly valid (but probably foolish) view that there should be no SindyRef in this Parliament.

    What happens in the next parliament is entirely a matter for the voters, neither Jack nor Johnson.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,775
    edited November 2020
    MrEd said:

    I would have thought with Trump still in office, @kinabalu , you would have thought fascism was still on the agenda.

    What a touching faith in US democracy :)

    On point though, you are absolutely right - it should be a steal. Has his price come out though?
    I have faith in the basics at least - the EC winner is the winner.

    Re the betting, I think punters are misinterpreting Republican "support" for Trump. It's not serious. They are just playing along until the need to leave office inevitably dawns. They're scared to piss him off because of his hold on the grassroots. It's disappointing but predictable given how supine they have been for the last 4 years.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,276
    kinabalu said:

    Yes, I have faith in the basics at least - the EC winner is the winner.

    Re the betting, I think punters are misinterpreting Republican "support" for Trump. It's not serious. They are just playing along until the need to leave office inevitably dawns. They're scared to piss him off because of his hold on the grassroots. It's disappointing but predictable given how supine they have been for the last 4 years.
    It`s all about Trump the narcissist-who-has-been-robbed protecting his own ego. Fragile soul that he is. He is creating a fog of alleged conspiracy and rigged elections so that when he leaves office his pride is intact.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,775
    edited November 2020
    Stocky said:

    It`s all about Trump the narcissist-who-has-been-robbed protecting his own ego. Fragile soul that he is. He is creating a fog of alleged conspiracy and rigged elections so that when he leaves office his pride is intact.
    Exactly. Ego and pride. Also brand management for whatever his post presidency antics are going to be - because "loser" will not work for that. It must be "winner but foiled by the swamp".
  • theakestheakes Posts: 958
    Fox has of course called Arizona for Biden. This was when what he was 60,000- 70,000, now its under 15,000. They may egg on their face.
    Damn good new that Biden appears to have won, hard to see any recount in Georgia changing his lead, over 11,000 now and who knows about North Carolina, think they start counting again today to complete by the 12th.
    Pennsylvannia and Wisconsin could be academic.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 958
    After "BLACK LIVES MATTER" need a campaign to SCRAP THE COLLEGE, CALL IT "LET THE POPULAR VOTE DECIDE"
  • The impression it gives is that they wanted to be first out the door with congratulations if Donald won, but were in no rush if it was Joe. Not helpful.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,077
    HYUFD said:

    He won't as Tory MPs will block it, it is Westminster that has to approve the legislation for it he himself cannot do it alone and even if the SNP won a Holyrood majority next year and it was allowed and Scotland did vote for independence the Scottish borders for example could remain part of the UK given it would likely vote heavily No
    Bellend, you forgot Shetland
This discussion has been closed.