David Herdson’s 2021 predictions – politicalbetting.com

Theuniondivvie said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Afaik EU citizens will be voting in the May election.

Edit: I hope we can all agree that it's ok for 18 year olds to vote!

They are not voting as EU citizens however, they are voting under the Sctottish Electoral \System as residents of Scotland meeting the criteria to have the franchise.

Yep, that's more accurate.

I think the governing sentiment is if you live in Scotland you're Scottish and have a vote. There might well be a partisan motive there - bet there is - but it does serve another rather more elevated purpose. It lends credence to the claim that the SNP political project is nationalism of the "civic" not "blood and soil" kind.

nichomar said:

Let’s try and keep away from Scottish referendum debate it’s been pleasant not having it so far today.
Police turning back day trippers to Snowdonia from all over the country, what is wrong with people do they not take in any news? The UK is on the verge of a health crisis which could hit anyone and still they ignore it. The bottom line I suppose is that there just aren’t enough police to do the job properly and the need to ‘police by consent’.

Policing by consent has always been the British way even when there were ,many more police. I certainly wouldn't want to see that change.

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Sandpit said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

BBC says that EuroMillions: Jackpot of more than £39m has been won by UK ticket-holder.

Will we still be able to buy EuroMillions tickets?

I got a lucky dip win

One Sunday morning, many years ago, I woke up to nine first dividends on the pools. Unfortunately there had been around 25 score draws on the usual Saturday slate of 46 matches so every bloke and his whippet had the same. Still hurts to think about it.

There was a time in the late ‘90s that numbers 1 and 7 both got drawn in the national lottery. 120ish people got all six numbers that night, good for something like £16k each of a £2m jackpot.

No doubt many of them called their boss when slightly the worse for wear that night, saying exactly where they could stuff their job, before the computer did its thing and they realised they weren’t quite as rich as they thought they were!

(I’ll try and look up the exact details, I was working part time in a convenience store at the time).

Edit: possibly this one:
Back on Saturday 14th January 1995, a staggering 133 players shared a Lotto jackpot of £16.2 million after matching the numbers 7, 17, 23, 32, 38 and 42. Why did so many ticket holders pick the same, apparently-random numbers? It was discovered that they were all printed in the central columns of the playslip, and so each winner had to be content with receiving a £122,510 payout.
https://www.national-lottery.com/news/what-are-the-most-unusual-lotto-results-ever

Not a bad win, but not tell-your-boss-to-f***-his-job money either.

wonder how many had to eat humble pie next day at work

Surely a Tesco's finest pie with 122 bags

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

I believe a majority of EU citizens voted No in 2014 (presumably because they were told it would secure EU membership). Was the result tainted?

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

If it does turn out that the new strain is more contagious because children are more susceptible, the government would be in deep doodoo. So they have to cave, as you say.

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

Hate to say it, but this might be what the government was hoping for.

Schools closed, but not the government's fault. In fact, another front in the culture war.

Appalling government, but potentially excellent populist politics.

But it is their fault. The NAHT would not be preparing to sue on the off-chance. They clearly believe they’ve found a breach of the law.

Its more likely a judgment call: can the employers provide a safe system of work? They might argue yes but others may well disagree.

F##king footballers.....

BBC News - Tottenham 'extremely disappointed' after three players attend party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55515555

BBC News - Fulham v Burnley postponed after further positive coronavirus results
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55456854

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

FrancisUrquhart said:

F##king footballers.....

BBC News - Tottenham 'extremely disappointed' after three players attend party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55515555

BBC News - Fulham v Burnley postponed after further positive coronavirus results
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55456854

F##king cricketers as well.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/countries/india/india-vs-australia-test-cricket-2021-new-years-test-restaurant-covid19-bubble-breach-news-latest/news-story/bf48a3e9e588da823c626da9bacbe8c1

DavidL said:

A decision to leave the UK is not a purely Scottish matter.

Just like leaving the EU was not purely UK matter.

oh, wait...

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

Hate to say it, but this might be what the government was hoping for.

Schools closed, but not the government's fault. In fact, another front in the culture war.

Appalling government, but potentially excellent populist politics.

But it is their fault. The NAHT would not be preparing to sue on the off-chance. They clearly believe they’ve found a breach of the law.

Its more likely a judgment call: can the employers provide a safe system of work? They might argue yes but others may well disagree.

More that they have assumed the government is withholding information:

https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-heads-covid-school-safety-legal-challenge

If they can back that up, the government is in deep, deep shit.

If they can’t, the NAHT are in desperate trouble themselves.

On past form, I think it unlikely the NAHT would move unless they were either very confident or totally, apocalyptically furious.

They’re definitely the latter though, as we all are.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

Hate to say it, but this might be what the government was hoping for.

Schools closed, but not the government's fault. In fact, another front in the culture war.

Appalling government, but potentially excellent populist politics.

But it is their fault. The NAHT would not be preparing to sue on the off-chance. They clearly believe they’ve found a breach of the law.

Its more likely a judgment call: can the employers provide a safe system of work? They might argue yes but others may well disagree.

More that they have assumed the government is withholding information:

https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-heads-covid-school-safety-legal-challenge

If they can back that up, the government is in deep, deep shit.

If they can’t, the NAHT are in desperate trouble themselves.

On past form, I think it unlikely the NAHT would move unless they were either very confident or totally, apocalyptically furious.

They’re definitely the latter though, as we all are.

The NAHT are normally super cautious, which makes this move all the more interesting.

nichomar said:

Let’s try and keep away from Scottish referendum debate it’s been pleasant not having it so far today.
Police turning back day trippers to Snowdonia from all over the country, what is wrong with people do they not take in any news? The UK is on the verge of a health crisis which could hit anyone and still they ignore it. The bottom line I suppose is that there just aren’t enough police to do the job properly and the need to ‘police by consent’.

You running the blog now, we will debate independence if we like. We all know from the numbers that down south are nutters, boring hearing yet again about them polluting the country and increasing virus numbers.

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

https://twitter.com/sajeraj/status/1331526936896696322

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

So that would rule out Irish , English , Commonwealth etc and all we would hear is that SNP are Nazi's and want to have pure blood referendum. That is an extremely poor choice David. You were happy that they got the vote the last time knowing they would vote NO to stay in EU, now as usual for Tories you want to switch rules to rig vote.

If EU citizens had the vote in the last Scottish referendum, then they should have it in the next one. Presumably the SNP had to accept their inclusion in 2014 even if it worked against them as they presumably think EU citizens should have the vote in all (i.e. including general) elections.

Whether of not EU citizens would switch from No to Yes, I'm not sure.

FF43 said:

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Cyclefree said:

Thank you @david_herdson.

I think you are altogether too optimistic about the vaccination programme.

Anyway, yesterday marked the day when I officially became Chair of Trustees of a London primary school. The one I went to in fact. It taught me a lot - not just what you'd expect from a good school but what to aspire to if you want to try to be a good person. So it feels right to be giving something back.

And this morning I have urgent calls with the Headmistress re the plans for online learning.

The mess Gavin Williamson is making of everything does not give me confidence in the vaccination programme or anything else this government touches, frankly. I am not a scientist but the idea of mixing and matching vaccines sounds peculiar. What is the scientific basis for it? What are the risks?

Regarding mixing and matching the vaccines, I imagine that the main driver is to vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible - no matter which particular vaccine. Better to go for quick, maximum possible coverage over the supply issues which would come with backing one manufacturer only.

I think it's fine to mix and match amongst the population, but if someone is on Pfizer, they need to stick to pfizer second dose - not have a second Oxford or Moderna dose.

This virologist implies it's OK (subject to confirmation) to prime with Pfizer type vaccines and boost with others, eg AstraZeneca. But maybe not the other way round?

https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1345086699521646592

My impression is that due to poorly run trials, we don't have a good handle on the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine, but as long as it's safe, we will jab it in and work out the efficacy later. GIven we are up against it, this makes some sense.

No reason it wouldn’t work the other way round, too.
I think her point about the mRNA vaccines (unlike say the Ad5 ones), that they don’t have a vector which the body generates an immune response to in the same way. She was thinking if the situation where you might use a modified vaccine (against a mutated version of the virus) as a booster.

As has been pointed out, there’s no data on mixing and matching the vaccines either way around, but theoretically it ought to work.

Btw, she is a scientist of serious reputation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiko_Iwasaki

gealbhan said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

A very clever spoof. Clever in the way they slowly ratchet up the comedy value, till the whole book says it in big letters.

I choose to believe there is no such thing as Ukraine.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86NxlmJQT4g

That was very amusing, from Charlie Brooker’s “Death to 2020” review of the year.

Alongside US comic Andrew Schulz’s review “Schulz Saves America”, the funniest thing on Netflix at the moment.

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

I agree about Irish citizens. I think that they retained the right to vote when Eire went independent but there is no one alive now who had the vote in 1919 and its long past time this anachronism was brought to an end. I wouldn't give the Commonwealth citizens a vote either. None of them, I think, have an automatic right to live here now and they will be on restricted visas of one type or another.

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

I agree about Irish citizens. I think that they retained the right to vote when Eire went independent but there is no one alive now who had the vote in 1919 and its long past time this anachronism was brought to an end. I wouldn't give the Commonwealth citizens a vote either. None of them, I think, have an automatic right to live here now and they will be on restricted visas of one type or another.

David, you seem to be ignoring English voters, do you suggest a special case is made for them only.

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

It is a historical holdover from when all the British territories had a common citizenship as “British subjects” and theoretical, if not practical for the vast majority, freedom of movement to the UK. After the Statute of Westminster was enacted in 1931, the “dominions” as they were then known, obtained the right to enact their own citizenships, but the right of their citizens resident in the UK was maintained by simply re-casting the rule so that Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK could vote, even though Commonwealth FOM ended in the late 60s (IIRC).

Ireland is a special case: partly because of the Northern Ireland situation but mostly because of the large numbers of Irish immigrants in Great Britain proper, it was deemed politic to treat Ireland as if it was a Commonwealth country after it became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1949. The Ireland Act 1949 specifically states that “the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law”. Because of the practicalities of the CTA and the inter-mingling of the British and Irish populations, when Commonwealth immigration started to be restricted nothing was changed with regard to Ireland which resulted in the Irish being more privileged than Commonwealth citizens in terms of being able to reside and vote in Britain despite no longer being in the Commonwealth.

As that law existed before the UK and Ireland joined the EEC / EU, it’s unaffected by Brexit. Ireland extended broadly reciprocal privileges to British citizens and so FOM between the UK and Ireland remains unchanged after Brexit.

kinabalu said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

A goddess of civility compared to this loon.

"Red, White and F You"

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy

Oh god. That one looks real too. I do hope all this has peaked with Him.

I've been wondering recently whether Trump is going to carry on calling these demonstations after Biden is inaugurated, and whether his appeal with persist strongly enough to carry on drawing similar crowds for his campaign "against fraud" ; if so, Biden and the Democrats will have an ongoing nuisance.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

I agree about Irish citizens. I think that they retained the right to vote when Eire went independent but there is no one alive now who had the vote in 1919 and its long past time this anachronism was brought to an end. I wouldn't give the Commonwealth citizens a vote either. None of them, I think, have an automatic right to live here now and they will be on restricted visas of one type or another.

David, you seem to be ignoring English voters, do you suggest a special case is made for them only.

British people have the right to vote wherever in Britain they reside. We are a single country. If that changes then we would need to decide what voting rights they should be given at that point.

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

What has HYFUD been up to?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9106113/Illegal-New-Years-Eve-party-100-held-4m-home-Englands-worst-Covid-hotspot.html

Police break up 100-strong illegal New Year's Eve rave featuring a fire dancer at £4m home in Epping Forest - England's worst Covid hotspot

This is HYUFD's rave gear apparently

Footage of the Scottish invasion force:

https://twitter.com/saadbassem/status/1317531648242700290

That parade is either sending seriously mixed signals or an attempt at entrapment.

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

I think I've spotted a clear and determined MO for this government in much of their pandemic response -

1. Focus on something that is inevitable for next week.
2. Rather than plan for it, say it's not necessary.
3. Allow 72 hours of debate and confusion.
4. Announce that it's now urgent (!) and is happening tomorrow.

3b. Announce a Johnson Press Conference to take place at 4pm, to which he won't turn up until 6pm.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

So that would rule out Irish , English , Commonwealth etc and all we would hear is that SNP are Nazi's and want to have pure blood referendum. That is an extremely poor choice David. You were happy that they got the vote the last time knowing they would vote NO to stay in EU, now as usual for Tories you want to switch rules to rig vote.

To be honest I don't think that it really impinged on my consciousness in 2014. The change in the voting age did (not least because my 16 year old daughter got her first vote) and it got lots of publicity but I don't remember the question of EU citizens voting coming up at all. If it had I would have been opposed to it for the same reasons.

rpjs said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

It is a historical holdover from when all the British territories had a common citizenship as “British subjects” and theoretical, if not practical for the vast majority, freedom of movement to the UK. After the Statute of Westminster was enacted in 1931, the “dominions” as they were then known, obtained the right to enact their own citizenships, but the right of their citizens resident in the UK was maintained by simply re-casting the rule so that Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK could vote, even though Commonwealth FOM ended in the late 60s (IIRC).

Ireland is a special case: partly because of the Northern Ireland situation but mostly because of the large numbers of Irish immigrants in Great Britain proper, it was deemed politic to treat Ireland as if it was a Commonwealth country after it became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1949. The Ireland Act 1949 specifically states that “the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law”. Because of the practicalities of the CTA and the inter-mingling of the British and Irish populations, when Commonwealth immigration started to be restricted nothing was changed with regard to Ireland which resulted in the Irish being more privileged than Commonwealth citizens in terms of being able to reside and vote in Britain despite no longer being in the Commonwealth.

As that law existed before the UK and Ireland joined the EEC / EU, it’s unaffected by Brexit. Ireland extended broadly reciprocal privileges to British citizens and so FOM between the UK and Ireland remains unchanged after Brexit.

Yes, that's right.

I don't mind the Irish exception too much, because it's reciprocal and they have a shared history. Same reason I'd extend it to Canada, Australia, NZ and maybe the US if they reciprocated.

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

Wut? So lie like shit to EU nationals in SindyRef1 to get them to vote No then excluded them from the franchise to stop them voting Yes?

Nice democracy you've got there.

The only people who lied in 2014 were the SNP spokesmen who claimed that an independent Scotland would have an automatic right to be a part of the EU. No one else.

Zatso?

https://twitter.com/EdinburghBobby/status/1335149473488625665?s=20

Yes it is. She was correctly stating the correct legal position at the time. Of course the UK subsequently decided to withdraw from the EU but that did not make what was said on the remain side in 2014, when no referendum was promised, let alone determined, untrue.

rpjs said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

It is a historical holdover from when all the British territories had a common citizenship as “British subjects” and theoretical, if not practical for the vast majority, freedom of movement to the UK. After the Statute of Westminster was enacted in 1931, the “dominions” as they were then known, obtained the right to enact their own citizenships, but the right of their citizens resident in the UK was maintained by simply re-casting the rule so that Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK could vote, even though Commonwealth FOM ended in the late 60s (IIRC).

Ireland is a special case: partly because of the Northern Ireland situation but mostly because of the large numbers of Irish immigrants in Great Britain proper, it was deemed politic to treat Ireland as if it was a Commonwealth country after it became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1949. The Ireland Act 1949 specifically states that “the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law”. Because of the practicalities of the CTA and the inter-mingling of the British and Irish populations, when Commonwealth immigration started to be restricted nothing was changed with regard to Ireland which resulted in the Irish being more privileged than Commonwealth citizens in terms of being able to reside and vote in Britain despite no longer being in the Commonwealth.

As that law existed before the UK and Ireland joined the EEC / EU, it’s unaffected by Brexit. Ireland extended broadly reciprocal privileges to British citizens and so FOM between the UK and Ireland remains unchanged after Brexit.

As far as historical holdovers go, this is at least a pretty decent one.

WhisperingOracle said:

A goddess of civility compared to this loon.

"Red, White and F You"

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy

Mindy Robinson was third of five (very Borg I know) in the Republican Primary to choose the candidate to fight the NV-03 seat.

She got 14% of the vote behind the eventual winner Daniel Rodimer. NV-03 went Democrat in 2016 and in 2018 the current incumbent won by 9 points. This time Rodimer cut the advantage to 3 points - the district voted for Biden over Trump by just 0.2%.

I wonder how many of these primary also-rans will take Ms Robinson's line and leave the GOP for the Patriot Party. It seems Trump and his supporters will hold a valedictory rally on Wednesday next week and perhaps Trump will put down a marker for a 2024 run then and there and it'll be interesting to see if he wants to be a GOP candidate or whether he'll run as a third party candidate.

Another case from someone I know today, 41 yr old man from my running club

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

I agree about Irish citizens. I think that they retained the right to vote when Eire went independent but there is no one alive now who had the vote in 1919 and its long past time this anachronism was brought to an end. I wouldn't give the Commonwealth citizens a vote either. None of them, I think, have an automatic right to live here now and they will be on restricted visas of one type or another.

David, you seem to be ignoring English voters, do you suggest a special case is made for them only.

British people have the right to vote wherever in Britain they reside. We are a single country. If that changes then we would need to decide what voting rights they should be given at that point.

Yet you advocate that it is only Scots who can get a vote , yet now want to extend it just to the ones you think will help your case and ban only the ones that might harm your case. Strange ideas on democracy there indeed.

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

Wut? So lie like shit to EU nationals in SindyRef1 to get them to vote No then excluded them from the franchise to stop them voting Yes?

Nice democracy you've got there.

The only people who lied in 2014 were the SNP spokesmen who claimed that an independent Scotland would have an automatic right to be a part of the EU. No one else.

Zatso?

https://twitter.com/EdinburghBobby/status/1335149473488625665?s=20

Yes it is. She was correctly stating the correct legal position at the time. Of course the UK subsequently decided to withdraw from the EU but that did not make what was said on the remain side in 2014, when no referendum was promised, let alone determined, untrue.

So circumstances have changed since 2014. I assume you are OK with having another vote then.

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

nichomar said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Funny that, Spain has kept voting rights for locals for Brits as long as it stays reciprocal.

I can see the argument for local elections when you are a resident and paying towards them. I can't for referendums. Am I right in understanding that in Spain foreigners cannot vote in the national elections?

At the risk of whataboutery, what's the rationale for Irish citizens having a vote in UK elections? Or indeed Commonwealth citizens? I know the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, but it seems irrelevant to who gets the vote. Commonwealth citizenship doesn't give the right to visit the UK even. The Scottish franchise, which is offered to anyone who is permanently resident and is a stakeholder in the democratic process, seems non-discriminatory and has a solid rationale.

I agree about Irish citizens. I think that they retained the right to vote when Eire went independent but there is no one alive now who had the vote in 1919 and its long past time this anachronism was brought to an end. I wouldn't give the Commonwealth citizens a vote either. None of them, I think, have an automatic right to live here now and they will be on restricted visas of one type or another.

David, you seem to be ignoring English voters, do you suggest a special case is made for them only.

British people have the right to vote wherever in Britain they reside. We are a single country. If that changes then we would need to decide what voting rights they should be given at that point.

we are not talking British elections, we are talking Scottish elections and the country is Scotland not Britain or UK or whatever you want to call it. People not living in Scotland have no right to vote in Scottish elections and if you ban all non Scottish born then you exclude the English as well. Why not just say you want the vote rigged in your favoured outcome.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

Wut? So lie like shit to EU nationals in SindyRef1 to get them to vote No then excluded them from the franchise to stop them voting Yes?

Nice democracy you've got there.

The only people who lied in 2014 were the SNP spokesmen who claimed that an independent Scotland would have an automatic right to be a part of the EU. No one else.

Zatso?

https://twitter.com/EdinburghBobby/status/1335149473488625665?s=20

Yes it is. She was correctly stating the correct legal position at the time. Of course the UK subsequently decided to withdraw from the EU but that did not make what was said on the remain side in 2014, when no referendum was promised, let alone determined, untrue.

So circumstances have changed since 2014. I assume you are OK with having another vote then.

I have said repeatedly that that is a matter for the Scottish people. If an absolute majority of Scots who vote in May vote for a party committed to a second referendum (that is the SNP and the Greens) then, yes, we should have a second referendum. I will of course be voting for a party opposing any such referendum but that is democracy and I may well lose on this occasion.

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

Wut? So lie like shit to EU nationals in SindyRef1 to get them to vote No then excluded them from the franchise to stop them voting Yes?

Nice democracy you've got there.

The only people who lied in 2014 were the SNP spokesmen who claimed that an independent Scotland would have an automatic right to be a part of the EU. No one else.

Zatso?

https://twitter.com/EdinburghBobby/status/1335149473488625665?s=20

Yes it is. She was correctly stating the correct legal position at the time. Of course the UK subsequently decided to withdraw from the EU but that did not make what was said on the remain side in 2014, when no referendum was promised, let alone determined, untrue.

So circumstances have changed since 2014. I assume you are OK with having another vote then.

I have said repeatedly that that is a matter for the Scottish people. If an absolute majority of Scots who vote in May vote for a party committed to a second referendum (that is the SNP and the Greens) then, yes, we should have a second referendum. I will of course be voting for a party opposing any such referendum but that is democracy and I may well lose on this occasion.

Glad to hear it. It will be interesting watching Johnson trying to stop it.

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

A goddess of civility compared to this loon.

"Red, White and F You"

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy

Oh god. That one looks real too. I do hope all this has peaked with Him.

I've been wondering recently whether Trump is going to carry on calling these demonstations after Biden is inaugurated, and whether his appeal with persist strongly enough to carry on drawing similar crowds for his campaign "against fraud" ; if so, Biden and the Democrats will have an ongoing nuisance.

Very much so. My sense is that he will not remain a serious political force for long but perhaps there is a touch of wish being father to the thought there.

Foreigners can’t vote in national elections

kle4 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Sandpit said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

A goddess of civility compared to this loon.

"Red, White and F You"

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy

Oh god. That one looks real too. I do hope all this has peaked with Him.

I've been wondering recently whether Trump is going to carry on calling these demonstations after Biden is inaugurated, and whether his appeal with persist strongly enough to carry on drawing similar crowds for his campaign "against fraud" ; if so, Biden and the Democrats will have an ongoing nuisance.

It depends a lot on whether the media keep covering him, or choose to ignore him.

The problem is that, no matter what he does, he’s box office gold for the rolling news networks.

Yes, he's a permanent media event. That's why I expect his rallies and grassroots appeal to persist in some form, if not always attracting the same numbers.

I know being rich is not everything (theoretically I know it anyway), but he honestly seems to crave attention more than the pursuit of wealth.

I think for Trump, the two are inextricable. On his business acumen alone, I doubt he'd be anything more than an unknown bankrupt has-been. His self-asserted wealth seemed to be the basis for his fame, which in turn seems to have generated the greatest part of his wealth.

gealbhan said:

LostPassword said:

gealbhan said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

The only question now is whether Williamson's inevitable announcement that schools aren't going back on Monday will come today or on Sunday. To save face, he ought to announce it now to maintain the facade that the decision is still in his hands.

"The National Education Union (NEU), which represents the majority of teachers and more than 450,000 school staff in the UK, will inform its members that it is not safe for them to return to school until mid-January at the earliest.
It expects most of its members will follow its advice, forcing most schools to switch to online learning for the majority of their pupils. The union will provide its members with a template letter to send to their headteachers, explaining that they are refusing to go into work because their workplace is unsafe, a right enshrined in law by section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Staff should still be prepared to work remotely, the union says, and should volunteer to look after vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers on school premises."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/government-faces-major-revolt-on-schools-reopening-in-england-over-covid-fears

You know what’s infuriating?

None of this was necessary if the government had been a little more thoughtful and flexible.

They were instead like Arthur Scargill on speed. With worse manners.

Yes. And it turns out that having previously threatened legal action to enforce their will, their own hand is now being forced in the face of legal action by the teaching unions.

It's a nice touch that the NEU are using a Conservative act of parliament to assert the right not to work in an unsafe environment.

GMB (one of the support staff unions) now invoking section 44 as well. Gavin might be surrounded by 5pm. Tricky to open schools if you don't have any staff.

To put it mildly, the whole thing is utter fucking chaos.

It's worse than the last week of term, and that was an omnishambles. I'd be astonished if it wasn't Williamson. He is incredibly stupid, and it appears no-one is in charge at No.10 either.

You are all making far too much of attacking government on schools. Government hides its motive behind the education loss of the poor kids, but truth is we all must appreciate like the government does schools open = child care = people going to work. Unlike the government you are ignoring the important child care angle here, aren’t you?

In Ireland one of the reasons for closing the schools in March was precisely to force parents to stay home from work.

It seems with Cockney Covid that we may need to keep all non-essential workers at home to control the spread. So closing schools (except for the children of essential workers) would seem to be the sensible approach.

Yeah. And what about the economy?

The thinking behind your post was simply about fighting covid. Downing Street quite rightly have higher ambitions than you, beating covid and protecting the economy at the same time. Hence schools must stay open. Even if they close in your borough the kids still travel to neighbouring borough to school.

Keeping Covid under control is a precondition for keeping the economy functioning. We've been through this argument several times. If the hospitals become overwhelmed the economy is down the pan too.

WhisperingOracle said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

A goddess of civility compared to this loon.

"Red, White and F You"

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy

Oh god. That one looks real too. I do hope all this has peaked with Him.

I don't know, they may have at least one point
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1345169717812551680

Mindy seems to be quite funny and have a way with a sharp quip, but completely deranged, somewhat like her hero, Trump. She seems to be waving a semi-automatic weapon in a bikini in her "Red, White and F You" picture.

Next stop congress - I see she's already stood for the Republicans.

Most of the prominent Trumpy alt right women seem to share a certain look & feel. Kind of Stepford with malice and decibels. Ghastly. Only thing more ghastly than a Trumpy alt right woman is a Trumpy alt right man.

Think there might be the makings of a decent country music song there.

She was an uptight Trump loving woman. I was a downbeat alt right guy.

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Afaik EU citizens will be voting in the May election.

Edit: I hope we can all agree that it's ok for 18 year olds to vote!

They are not voting as EU citizens however, they are voting under the Sctottish Electoral \System as residents of Scotland meeting the criteria to have the franchise.

Surely it is for the Scottish Government to decide what the franchise is and take whatever political fallout that might come from it. Personally - to take the only example I have concerns about - I think giving 16 year olds the vote is a bloody stupid idea but if that is what the Scots decide is their legal position then it is for them to decide that for elections that they call not Westminster.

I also think that in England for local elections we should modify the franchise so it is based on legal residency not on nationality. If you are a Dutchman (like the godfather of my kids) and have lived here for 30 years then you have a right to take part in deciding who runs the local services. Same if you are an American, Japanese or Nigerian.

General Elections and referendums I would prefer to see kept for UK nationals only. If you want to take part in deciding the future of the country then become a citizen.

But as I say I don't think Westminster have the right to impose that view on Scotland when dealing with purely Scottish matters.

A decision to leave the UK is not a purely Scottish matter. It is a decision that the Scots are entitled to take but the rest of the UK have a very distinct interest in ensuring that will is properly reflected in any vote.

I disagree completely. That is like saying that the EU - who surely had a very distinct interest in the 2016 referendum - should have been able to dictate how it was carried out and what the franchise was. They did not and should not.

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

If they are resident in the country and meet requirements for the Scottish electoral voting system then why would they not be allowed to vote.

Because this is a decision for Scots. If they feel sufficiently affiliated to this country to take out UK citizenship, fine, no problem. But if they remain French or Spanish or whatever they do not have a right to decide our future.

Clearly the vast majority of EU citizens would vote for Independence in the hope that an independent Scotland would once again join the EU. But would even the SNP want to taint any result in this way?

Wut? So lie like shit to EU nationals in SindyRef1 to get them to vote No then excluded them from the franchise to stop them voting Yes?

Nice democracy you've got there.

The only people who lied in 2014 were the SNP spokesmen who claimed that an independent Scotland would have an automatic right to be a part of the EU. No one else.

Mother fucker, one of my work colleagues voted No because she had been told she would be deported if Scotland gained independence.

The No campaign sent people round the Polish clubs and the like to spread that lie.

Fuck you, you sanctimonious fucker. Fuck right off.

Don't feel the need to respond to one of my comments again. I will certainly be doing likewise.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Essexit said:

malcolmg/Theuniondivvie - Cameron was complacent in 2014 and allowed the SNP to implement a non-standard electoral franchise which was in *their* favour. That mistake should not be repeated.

It's not non-standard in Scotland, it's just 'the electoral franchise'.

I am quite relaxed about 16-18 year olds but EU citizens' voting rights ended yesterday and keeping them on the franchise for this would be unacceptable.

Afaik EU citizens will be voting in the May election.

Edit: I hope we can all agree that it's ok for 18 year olds to vote!

They are not voting as EU citizens however, they are voting under the Sctottish Electoral \System as residents of Scotland meeting the criteria to have the franchise.

Surely it is for the Scottish Government to decide what the franchise is and take whatever political fallout that might come from it. Personally - to take the only example I have concerns about - I think giving 16 year olds the vote is a bloody stupid idea but if that is what the Scots decide is their legal position then it is for them to decide that for elections that they call not Westminster.

I also think that in England for local elections we should modify the franchise so it is based on legal residency not on nationality. If you are a Dutchman (like the godfather of my kids) and have lived here for 30 years then you have a right to take part in deciding who runs the local services. Same if you are an American, Japanese or Nigerian.

General Elections and referendums I would prefer to see kept for UK nationals only. If you want to take part in deciding the future of the country then become a citizen.

But as I say I don't think Westminster have the right to impose that view on Scotland when dealing with purely Scottish matters.

A decision to leave the UK is not a purely Scottish matter. It is a decision that the Scots are entitled to take but the rest of the UK have a very distinct interest in ensuring that will is properly reflected in any vote.

I disagree completely. That is like saying that the EU - who surely had a very distinct interest in the 2016 referendum - should have been able to dictate how it was carried out and what the franchise was. They did not and should not.

Whilst I'm not sure how I feel about this now it certainly felt opportunistic when 16 & 17 year olds got the vote for the last referendum.

I also disagree about equating to the EU technically as UK / GB is a country and the EU is not.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

F##king footballers.....

BBC News - Tottenham 'extremely disappointed' after three players attend party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55515555

BBC News - Fulham v Burnley postponed after further positive coronavirus results
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55456854

What is it with moronic sportsmen, every damn day there’s more of them who don’t seem to understand the concept of a pandemic.

Probably all moot by next week though, if cases keep going up they’re probably going to have to either postpone the league or go with the proper bubble approach that F1 did.

The clubs are literally doing everything for them to stop them having to come into contact with the plebs and yet they can't just help themselves.

Piers Corbyn has been arrested yet again....2 days in 2021 and he has already been arrested twice.

gealbhan said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Quite a one -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1345351544066240513

It`s Charlie Brooker`s latest effort, "Death to 2020". It`s good but nowhere near his best form.

Did Jones boy think it was for real?

No! It's Phoebe!