Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump bows out with the worst Gallup approval ratings ever for any President in 83 years of polling

24567

Comments

  • Sandpit said:

    @Sandpit FPT - I wonder if SNP run councils and the Scottish Parliament are on a bit of a go-slow with fisheries certification. One video I saw was critiquing Argyll & Bute for them not having anyone on duty on a bank holiday.

    The political temptation for them to do so - or the very least "work to rule", making very little effort - and blaming it all on Westminster, so to reap the rewards in May, must be overwhelming

    There’s definitely reasons why only the Scottish fishermen seem to have a problem with the new arrangement.

    Their EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’, and the forthcoming Scottish government elections are obviously completely irrelevant to their predicament.
    What level of incompetence in a government allows an industry sector that even with an "EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’"(©Sandpit) that broadly supported you to completely flip?

    Ah, THAT level of incompetence.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    DavidL said:

    So, greatest achievements of Donald Trump's Presidency?

    Massive increase in US energy production becoming the largest oil producer in the world and a major exporter of LNG.

    More rapid growth over the first 3 years than Obama ever managed with a huge boom in US jobs (even if it was being driven by an unsustainable deficit).

    For his base securing a conservative majority on the SC for a generation (not that I would regard that as a good thing myself).

    A much more realistic, if chaotic, relationship with China.

    A more realistic if also more disengaged approach to Europe.

    Middle East peace treaty with some of the Arab states and Israel.

    Significant reduction in US military commitments and combat deaths around the world.

    Its not a great list and the list of failures is much, much longer.

    Personally, I will be glad when 12 noon tomorrow confirms it is finally over.

    You've missed out "owning the libs". That will be number 1 for millions.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Scott_xP said:

    Culture Minister confirms she hasn't a fucking clue how her industry works

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1351520808586407942

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1351521238557073408

    Is that a requirement to be in BoZo's cabinet?

    Live music is one area where I think we can cope fairly well with UK and Anglosphere suppliers :wink: (I do have a substantial minority of EU-based artists' music on my metaphorical CD shelves, but the vast majority is UK, US etc)

    I do accept this sucks a bit for UK acts. For the big acts no doubt the paperwork will be done and permits obtained, but may make things less viable for the small acts who could otherwise do a tour of small venues across Europe very cheaply. If some kind of exception is not agreed.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    I wonder what HYUFD's spin will be on Mike's thread header.

    Meanwhile, CNN are at it again. Another Britain-basher piece:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/uk/uk-covid-london-hospitals-surge-gbr-intl/index.html

  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    Just to analyse the logic of why I say that, let's assume I am a pro indy scot:

    If I am asked that question and I wanted the referendum next week I would still respond as one of the 57% who responded within the next 5 years so I have responded positively even though 5 years is unacceptable

    OK now let us assume I am perverse and decide to not vote with the 57% because of the 5 year criteria and I want a shorter timeframe. That means if a shorter time period is given I will vote for it meaning the figure is now greater than 57%.

    So assumption does not hold under any criteria.
    If a shorter timeframe was given you would not vote within the 57% but the remainder of the 57% added to the 43% would give a majority for no indyref2 until after 2024
    Again an opinion. You might be right, you might not. You are changing the question and giving an opinion on how people will answer the new question. You have made an assumption as to what would happen. Your assumption is perfectly reasonable and might well be right.

    But that isn't the point.

    All I did was point out that your original statement of fact (remember that from several posts ago) was in fact an opinion and demonstrated it by applying a logical construct that showed it could be flawed.

    Yes I agree your assumption of what the situation is could be correct (I might even agree with you), but it was not a fact, but an opinion, that could be shown to be so by applying logic to it, that could show a scenario where it failed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    I wonder what HYUFD's spin will be on Mike's thread header.

    Meanwhile, CNN are at it again. Another Britain-basher piece:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/uk/uk-covid-london-hospitals-surge-gbr-intl/index.html

    As I posted earlier Truman had an even lower approval rating of 32% when he left office.

    Plus Trump's average approval rating of 88% was the highest amongst Republican voters for any post WW2 President since Eisenhower.

    Trump was very unpopular with Democrats and independents relatively, he retains popularity with his party base
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
  • Stocky said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
    My knowledge of US history isn't that deep, but isn't a president whipping up a mob to assault the Capitol uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
  • StarryStarry Posts: 103
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    All of this increases the desire for independence. England votes one way and wants to tell another country if they can even hold a referendum. Totally unsustainable.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    Not sure why that got flagged. I posted yesterday that I would be astonished if no-one had died already since receiving their first jab in the UK. We've been jabbing since mid Dec and the cohort is for the most part the closes to death...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Selebian said:

    I do accept this sucks a bit for UK acts. For the big acts no doubt the paperwork will be done and permits obtained, but may make things less viable for the small acts who could otherwise do a tour of small venues across Europe very cheaply. If some kind of exception is not agreed.

    Depends on the definition of "act"

    Massively successful pop groups might be OK. Orchestras are fucked.

    Every musician needs a visa for every country, and every instrument needs a carnet for every country.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    That`s unfair.

    And what other logic is there other than the one HYUFD states? There is no other mechanism for a further referendum.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    Not sure why that got flagged. I posted yesterday that I would be astonished if no-one had died already since receiving their first jab in the UK. We've been jabbing since mid Dec and the cohort is for the most part the closes to death...

    There have been stories in the press already about nurses who got their first, had their second postponed due to the new policy, then died
  • Stocky said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
    What is frustrating is that in some ways his analysis of the issues was spot on. Washington inside the Beltway is fundamentally corrupt and the 'Swamp' description is entirely accurate. Globalisation has been bad for a huge swathes of the US - perhaps even the majority of the population. The Neocon agenda of never ending overseas interventions did need to end. Europe did need to step up and start paying for its own defence.

    The trouble is that Trump was completely the wrong person to try and deal with these issues and in associating them with himself and then failing so badly he has soiled the image of these serious issues.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Stocky said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
    My knowledge of US history isn't that deep, but isn't a president whipping up a mob to assault the Capitol uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    Yes of course. Hope he`s charged.

    But the root is the fact that he was able to run for GOP nominee in the first place.
  • Good riddance to Trump.

    The only bright spark is potentially a bit more peace in the Middle East with countries beginning to recognise Israel officially and sign peace accords (though realistically the ones who have haven't been fighting for decades anyway so how meaningful a change it is I'm not sure, its still a positive).

    Other than that, a dreadful POTUS from start to finish. Second worst after Andrew Jackson in my opinion, though even Jackson had some positives so possibly the worst ever. Definitely worse than Buchanan.

    Warren Harding waves:

    "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here."

    He was so reassuringly vague in his campaign declarations that he was understood to support both the foes and the backers of U.S. entry into the League of Nations, the hottest issue of the day.
    Wasn't there a similar story about Boris recently where he had, while London Mayor. written letters of support to both proponents and opponents of a planning application?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Stocky said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
    The Trump Presidency

    It's a cake made of awful policies, awful implementation of the awful policies and an icing made out of incompetent corruption in awful implantation of the awful policies. With layers of supporters who are substantially fascist and racist. The whole doused in insurrectionist and violent rhetoric, provoking and encouraging repeated criminality.

    The cherry on the cake is the stupid Twitter addiction.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
    Judging by election results the far right hardly exists except for those who believe that far right includes supporting Brexit, wanting national control over borders, holding to some traditional values, voting Conservative, believing that empires including our own are a mixture of better and worse things, that people are to be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin, and loving queen and country.
    Far Right leanings are compatible with all of those things you list apart from not judging people by the colour of their skin. Finding a non-racist Far Righter is pretty much mission impossible.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    @Sandpit FPT - I wonder if SNP run councils and the Scottish Parliament are on a bit of a go-slow with fisheries certification. One video I saw was critiquing Argyll & Bute for them not having anyone on duty on a bank holiday.

    The political temptation for them to do so - or the very least "work to rule", making very little effort - and blaming it all on Westminster, so to reap the rewards in May, must be overwhelming

    There’s definitely reasons why only the Scottish fishermen seem to have a problem with the new arrangement.

    Their EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’, and the forthcoming Scottish government elections are obviously completely irrelevant to their predicament.
    What level of incompetence in a government allows an industry sector that even with an "EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’"(©Sandpit) that broadly supported you to completely flip?

    Ah, THAT level of incompetence.
    If there were a genuine problem, as opposed to an SNP-manufactured grievance, then English fishermen would also be mightily upset. But they’re not, in fact they seem quite happy with their new arrangement.

    The French and Irish fishermen, on the other hand, are livid that the EU rolled over on maintaining existing quotas.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    The Trump Presidency

    It's a cake made of awful policies, awful implementation of the awful policies and an icing made out of incompetent corruption in awful implantation of the awful policies. With layers of supporters who are substantially fascist and racist. The whole doused in insurrectionist and violent rhetoric, provoking and encouraging repeated criminality.

    The cherry on the cake is the stupid Twitter addiction.

    We are lucky.

    The BoZo premiership only has a cake made of awful policies, awful implementation of the awful policies and an icing made out of incompetent corruption in awful implantation of the awful policies. With layers of supporters who are substantially fascist and racist.

    Without the stupid Twitter addiction.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    HYUFD sigh:

    Let's breakdown your post:

    1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)

    2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.

    2nd para - is an opinion

    Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:

    A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited January 2021
    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    That`s unfair.

    And what other logic is there other than the one HYUFD states? There is no other mechanism for a further referendum.
    People power and the forced U-turn. You know, the kind that brings down tin-ear governments, no matter how authoritarian. The kind that brought down the Iron Lady over the poll tax, too.

    Oh, I forgot! Boris is more intransigent than Maggie and never, ever, changes his mind.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    HYUFD sigh:

    Let's breakdown your post:

    1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)

    2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.

    2nd para - is an opinion

    Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:

    A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
    I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.

    As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    edited January 2021

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
    Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.

    In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited January 2021
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    So, greatest achievements of Donald Trump's Presidency?

    Massive increase in US energy production becoming the largest oil producer in the world and a major exporter of LNG.

    More rapid growth over the first 3 years than Obama ever managed with a huge boom in US jobs (even if it was being driven by an unsustainable deficit).

    For his base securing a conservative majority on the SC for a generation (not that I would regard that as a good thing myself).

    A much more realistic, if chaotic, relationship with China.

    A more realistic if also more disengaged approach to Europe.

    Middle East peace treaty with some of the Arab states and Israel.

    Significant reduction in US military commitments and combat deaths around the world.

    Its not a great list and the list of failures is much, much longer.

    Personally, I will be glad when 12 noon tomorrow confirms it is finally over.

    we might end up learning to miss his foreign policy. Some genuine big gains made, all while acting the silly sod.
    Biden will be a more neoconservative President than Trump was for sure, hence why John Bolton backed Biden over Trump and the anti war Democratic left backed Sanders over Biden.

    Trump withdrew the last US combat forces from Afghanistan in one of his last acts in office, Biden still wants to tackle Al Qaeda there and Biden also voted for the Iraq War unlike Obama (and Trump also said as President the Iraq War was a mistake).

    Biden will certainly take a tougher line on Russia than Trump did too while still being wary of China but in a more diplomatic way.

    George W Bush has broadly welcomed Biden's election as he knows Biden has a foreign policy approach closer to his than Trump's was.
    The neocons hate Trump because he called their foreign wars out for what they were, namely stupid. It's a lot of the reason driving opposition from the like of Bush II, rather than personal disgust at Trump's behaviour.
    Can we bet on the first country Biden & Co are going to waste American lives, spunk billions in tax dollars and act as a recruiting officer for the local insurgents?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915

    Stocky said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.

    Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
    What is frustrating is that in some ways his analysis of the issues was spot on. Washington inside the Beltway is fundamentally corrupt and the 'Swamp' description is entirely accurate. Globalisation has been bad for a huge swathes of the US - perhaps even the majority of the population. The Neocon agenda of never ending overseas interventions did need to end. Europe did need to step up and start paying for its own defence.

    The trouble is that Trump was completely the wrong person to try and deal with these issues and in associating them with himself and then failing so badly he has soiled the image of these serious issues.
    Trump is a symptom of America's malaise, but he has also made it worse. His aversion to foreign adventurism is his only virtue. The US is lucky he was too chaotic and stupid to put any real effort into dismantling the system's checks and balances. A determined neo fascist leader would have probably succeeded. The next Trump to come along might be a whole lot more dangerous, and I see little evidence that the conditions that gave rise to Trump will dissipate soon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    TimT said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    That`s unfair.

    And what other logic is there other than the one HYUFD states? There is no other mechanism for a further referendum.
    People power and the forced U-turn. You know, the kind that brings down tin-ear governments, no matter how authoritarian. The kind that brought down the Iron Lady over the poll tax, too.

    Oh, I forgot! Boris is more intransigent than Maggie and never, ever, changes his mind.
    Boris has a UK majority of 80, yet only 6 Scottish seats so he can afford to ignore Scotland anyway.

    However the fact less than 60% want an indyref2 within 10 years and only 57% want one even in 5 years shows he can ignore the SNP regardless without much resistance from the majority of Scots for the rest of this Parliament
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    @Sandpit FPT - I wonder if SNP run councils and the Scottish Parliament are on a bit of a go-slow with fisheries certification. One video I saw was critiquing Argyll & Bute for them not having anyone on duty on a bank holiday.

    The political temptation for them to do so - or the very least "work to rule", making very little effort - and blaming it all on Westminster, so to reap the rewards in May, must be overwhelming

    There’s definitely reasons why only the Scottish fishermen seem to have a problem with the new arrangement.

    Their EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’, and the forthcoming Scottish government elections are obviously completely irrelevant to their predicament.
    What level of incompetence in a government allows an industry sector that even with an "EU and ScotGov funded ‘trade association’"(©Sandpit) that broadly supported you to completely flip?

    Ah, THAT level of incompetence.
    If there were a genuine problem, as opposed to an SNP-manufactured grievance, then English fishermen would also be mightily upset. But they’re not, in fact they seem quite happy with their new arrangement.

    The French and Irish fishermen, on the other hand, are livid that the EU rolled over on maintaining existing quotas.
    SNP-Manufactured Grievance used to be an ok band but they just replay all the ancient stuff now. In Scotland their old fans are deserting them and they just don't appeal to the youngsters. Still, a small but loyal following with migrant Jocks and people who have bugger all to do with Scotland though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    All of this increases the desire for independence. England votes one way and wants to tell another country if they can even hold a referendum. Totally unsustainable.
    Wrong, see Madrid and Catalonia and Catalonia has not even been allowed 1 indyref
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.

    If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
    It does exist. Most certainly it does. And they had a soft spot for "Boris". He got a Tommy Robinson endorsement no less. You're saying they've gone off him now because of how he's prioritized the NHS over the right of an Englishman to live strong & free? I hope you're right. Because the matter was bugging me. The Far Right ought to be hating whoever is our PM. If they aren't, something is going wrong.
    Have a look at where Boris stands in the ConHome rankings, or what the top Daily Mail comments on articles about his major policies say, or what Delingpole is Tweeting about him - it's as good a proxy for that strand of opinion as anything else.
    Perhaps in this sense he has been saved by the pandemic. It's forced him to jettison the support he had from unsavouries. I'm not a believer in having as wide a voting coalition as possible. I think a mandate is polluted if the wrong sorts are on board.

    I've never been into ConHome. It's a far right grouping, then, is it?
  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    .
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
    It does exist. Most certainly it does. And they had a soft spot for "Boris". He got a Tommy Robinson endorsement no less. You're saying they've gone off him now because of how he's prioritized the NHS over the right of an Englishman to live strong & free? I hope you're right. Because the matter was bugging me. The Far Right ought to be hating whoever is our PM. If they aren't, something is going wrong.
    Have a look at where Boris stands in the ConHome rankings, or what the top Daily Mail comments on articles about his major policies say, or what Delingpole is Tweeting about him - it's as good a proxy for that strand of opinion as anything else.
    Perhaps in this sense he has been saved by the pandemic. It's forced him to jettison the support he had from unsavouries. I'm not a believer in having as wide a voting coalition as possible. I think a mandate is polluted if the wrong sorts are on board.

    I've never been into ConHome. It's a far right grouping, then, is it?
    I thought it was an association of griftees.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
    It does exist. Most certainly it does. And they had a soft spot for "Boris". He got a Tommy Robinson endorsement no less. You're saying they've gone off him now because of how he's prioritized the NHS over the right of an Englishman to live strong & free? I hope you're right. Because the matter was bugging me. The Far Right ought to be hating whoever is our PM. If they aren't, something is going wrong.
    Have a look at where Boris stands in the ConHome rankings, or what the top Daily Mail comments on articles about his major policies say, or what Delingpole is Tweeting about him - it's as good a proxy for that strand of opinion as anything else.
    Perhaps in this sense he has been saved by the pandemic. It's forced him to jettison the support he had from unsavouries. I'm not a believer in having as wide a voting coalition as possible. I think a mandate is polluted if the wrong sorts are on board.

    I've never been into ConHome. It's a far right grouping, then, is it?
    I agree with you about the voting coalition - policy must be grounded in ideology for me.

    How are the midget gems working out for you?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.

    If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
    I don't know when you last went to a beach, but lines in the sand tend not to be firm.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.

    @ mysticrose: I used to let HYUFD's posts get under my skin. His absolute certainty on issues where they can be no certainty, his refusal to ever admit he's wrong and constantly trying to change and twist the field of battle to avoid being forced to, and his unfathomable faith in opinion polls as absolute harbingers (or at least the polls of a select few) - all got my blood pressure up.

    But then I realized there was no point in letting it get to me. Either ignore his posts, or let them flow over you.

    And, regardless of the above, I have come to realize he is an asset to this site:
    1. He posts a lot of interesting data, including latests opinion polls
    2. He gives a view into the mindset of a type of Tory I am not
    3. Occasionally, he posts something that really gets you thinking and questioning some of your unquestioned political assumptions. It may not change your mind, but it will make you validate your own previously unchallenged articles of political faith.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.

    If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
    I don't know when you last went to a beach, but lines in the sand tend not to be firm.
    With a majority of 80 they are, until 2024 Boris can and will do what he likes as PM
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Crawley's training ground is now closed following a Covid outbreak that led to the postponement of tonight's League Two match against Stevenage.

    Portuguese side Benfica say 17 people from their playing squad, coaching staff and general staff have tested positive for Covid-19.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    I'm not asking for concessions from you. I'm calling you balloon.
  • Back from my trip out. Sorry @eek, no arrest was made

    What's that sneaky curtain-twitcher hotline number again?
    At some point I am sure someone will have a moan! But in this case officer can I show you the email request from my client? Legit business trip. That it shakes the cobwebs out of the car and does a DPF regen and recharges the batteries also helps.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.


    I don't think Boris is popular with the Far Right. Certainly there are plenty of the UKIP/Brexit party/Reform variety who wouldn't vote for him and think he has betrayed them. Some of them stuck with him for the purposes of getting out of the EU but they will not support him any further.

    I think Boris is in trouble come the next election. Politicians always talk about the people 'lending them' their vote and I think it really was the case in 2019.

    Those who voted for him for getting Brexit done will now have no reason to continue to vote for him.
    Those who voted for him to prevent a Corbyn Government will no longer see Labour as the threat it was
    Then there are those who are naturally right of centre, small government types who, like me, either could not vote for him last time because - well he's Boris - or who will not vote for him next time because he has shown himself to be as incompetent and self serving as many claimed.

    I don't necessarily see the Labour vote shooting up much - at least not unless Starmer makes a lot more of an impression than he is at the moment - but I can see, in fact I think we already do see, the Tory vote fragmenting.


    He certainly was a year and a half ago. His promises on Brexit were manna to the far right, and his... let's call them dog whistles... went down well too.
    I think the weird far-right/libertarian axis has since found his lockdown policies to be less than their cup of tea.
    Always remember the First Rule Of Boris:

    There are exactly two groups of people in the world:
    Those who Boris Johnson has betrayed, and
    Those who Boris Johnson hasn't betrayed... yet.
    Yep. And we can add the Far Right now. He's thrown them under a bus. Best place for them, as it happens, but still. I would have preferred them not be riding in the first place, even if they were top deck and at the back.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    While I have a lot of time for @HYUFD and I think the site is richer for his presence and his posts, nevertheless that parody you posted of him in typical HYUFD mode was bloody funny.

    I tried to find it but couldn't. Please re-post (daily, if necessary).
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?

    Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
    It does exist. Most certainly it does. And they had a soft spot for "Boris". He got a Tommy Robinson endorsement no less. You're saying they've gone off him now because of how he's prioritized the NHS over the right of an Englishman to live strong & free? I hope you're right. Because the matter was bugging me. The Far Right ought to be hating whoever is our PM. If they aren't, something is going wrong.
    Have a look at where Boris stands in the ConHome rankings, or what the top Daily Mail comments on articles about his major policies say, or what Delingpole is Tweeting about him - it's as good a proxy for that strand of opinion as anything else.
    Perhaps in this sense he has been saved by the pandemic. It's forced him to jettison the support he had from unsavouries. I'm not a believer in having as wide a voting coalition as possible. I think a mandate is polluted if the wrong sorts are on board.

    I've never been into ConHome. It's a far right grouping, then, is it?
    Why do you think people get banished there for misbehaving on PB? :wink:

    Let's just say it's rather more FarageDelingpoleRobinsonHome than anything else.

    As for mandates being polluted, that rather ignores the messiness of democratic politics. An election-winning Corbyn government would inevitably have drawn part of its support from antisemites and all sorts of extremists of the left, but repulsive though that is it would still have had a democratic mandate.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    edited January 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    Selebian said:

    I do accept this sucks a bit for UK acts. For the big acts no doubt the paperwork will be done and permits obtained, but may make things less viable for the small acts who could otherwise do a tour of small venues across Europe very cheaply. If some kind of exception is not agreed.

    Depends on the definition of "act"

    Massively successful pop groups might be OK. Orchestras are fucked.

    Every musician needs a visa for every country, and every instrument needs a carnet for every country.
    Not true in all European counties.

    France: No permit needed for up to 90 days in a 12 month period.

    Germany: UK nationals will ‘most likely fall under the ETIAS program, once it goes fully operational in 2021. Qualifying for ETIAS means that no permit is needed for 90 days.
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
    He hasn't got one.

    I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.

    HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    HYUFD sigh:

    Let's breakdown your post:

    1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)

    2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.

    2nd para - is an opinion

    Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:

    A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
    I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.

    As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
    But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.

    Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.

    I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.

    Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.

    Even your last post does it:

    'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.

    a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially
    b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    Versus thousands who will die waiting for their first dose all across Europe. You are truly an idiot.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    TimT said:



    @ mysticrose: I used to let HYUFD's posts get under my skin. His absolute certainty on issues where they can be no certainty, his refusal to ever admit he's wrong and constantly trying to change and twist the field of battle to avoid being forced to, and his unfathomable faith in opinion polls as absolute harbingers (or at least the polls of a select few) - all got my blood pressure up.

    To be fair, you could also say that about quite a few of the Nats on here as well.

    Unlike you, I am not inclined to look beyond the intransigence to try and discover whether there might be the occasional golden nugget lurking amongst the one-dimensional unyielding opinion.
  • TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    While I have a lot of time for @HYUFD and I think the site is richer for his presence and his posts, nevertheless that parody you posted of him in typical HYUFD mode was bloody funny.

    I tried to find it but couldn't. Please re-post (daily, if necessary).
    It's vulgar to reuse your own material, and the effect will be less for repetition, but since you asked:

    -----
    The pointlessness of conversations with HYUFD:

    IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan.
    HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea?
    HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea?
    HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital
    IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another
    HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital

    ad nauseum
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    So, greatest achievements of Donald Trump's Presidency?

    Massive increase in US energy production becoming the largest oil producer in the world and a major exporter of LNG.

    More rapid growth over the first 3 years than Obama ever managed with a huge boom in US jobs (even if it was being driven by an unsustainable deficit).

    For his base securing a conservative majority on the SC for a generation (not that I would regard that as a good thing myself).

    A much more realistic, if chaotic, relationship with China.

    A more realistic if also more disengaged approach to Europe.

    Middle East peace treaty with some of the Arab states and Israel.

    Significant reduction in US military commitments and combat deaths around the world.

    Its not a great list and the list of failures is much, much longer.

    Personally, I will be glad when 12 noon tomorrow confirms it is finally over.

    You've missed out "owning the libs". That will be number 1 for millions.
    Yes, its a fair point. He used Twitter to get his messages out in a completely blunt and unvarnished way without any mediation by the MSM and they hated it. It meant that they could not control the story the way that they are used to. Some of those messages were pretty vile, of course, especially the racist/white supremacist ones, but it was a new weapon and a change in the power of the Presidency similar to what FDR managed with his fireside chats.

    Because he was no longer a supplicant to the media he felt empowered to be even ruder to them than he otherwise might have been and his base lapped it up. I think it was a lot more difficult than he made it appear. I suspect Biden's twitter feed as President will be boring and persuade no one.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072

    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
    Presuming that the maths are correct.

    We know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly. How that affects the level of immunity in our targeted group of the over eighties after a single shot, no one knows. The evidence from Israel suggests a 33% level of protection in the third week after a single Pfizer.

    I am a bit surprised that anyone has yet had time to die yet from a delayed second shot. The policy came in on 4th Jan, so the longest delay would now be 6 weeks. Catching covid, getting sick enough to be admitted and dying takes a couple of weeks. I would be interested in @Scott_P's source. I wouldn't think that we would find out about any cases for another few weeks at least.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    HYUFD said:
    Good news. That's 4 million people no longer in the queue in front of me.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    While I have a lot of time for @HYUFD and I think the site is richer for his presence and his posts, nevertheless that parody you posted of him in typical HYUFD mode was bloody funny.

    I tried to find it but couldn't. Please re-post (daily, if necessary).
    It's vulgar to reuse your own material, and the effect will be less for repetition, but since you asked:

    -----
    The pointlessness of conversations with HYUFD:

    IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan.
    HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea?
    HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea?
    HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital
    IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another
    HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital

    ad nauseum
    :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    HYUFD sigh:

    Let's breakdown your post:

    1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)

    2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.

    2nd para - is an opinion

    Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:

    A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
    I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.

    As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
    But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.

    Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.

    I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.

    Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.

    Even your last post does it:

    'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.

    a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially
    b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.

    I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'

    I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.

    It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.

    If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
    I don't know when you last went to a beach, but lines in the sand tend not to be firm.
    With a majority of 80 they are, until 2024 Boris can and will do what he likes as PM
    And if what he likes is to save the union then he will take the fight to the separatists if they win a mandate for a new referendum.

    If he doesn't want to save the union he can doom it by not bothering. The separatists will have then de facto won and it will be a matter of when but not if the union ends.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2021

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
    He hasn't got one.

    I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.

    HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
    It reminds me of an abusive relationship where the husband (England / the Tory party) is telling the wife (Scotland) that she can't leave
    I say that as it's clear the the SNP are currently knee deep in a similar domestic between Salmon and Sturgeon.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,090
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I expect this is true of every other vaccine :.

    But Anna Durbin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was less confident about the levels of protection. In particular, she was skeptical a one-dose vaccine would be enough for older adults, who don’t always mount as strong an immune response as younger people.

    “I think it was a bit of a gamble to go with the single dose, and I think it was very responsible of the company to look at a two-dose regimen and a one-dose regimen,” said Durbin, an investigator in trials of the Pfizer vaccine and another testing a vaccine made by AstraZeneca.


    Please for the love of God let vulnerable people receive 2 doses of vaccine, 1 dose will probably suffice for fit under 50s that don't work amongst the covid +ve

    They will eventually - the issue is as I described last week is vaccinate 10 people twice and 9 have immunity, vaccinate 20 people once and 12 have immunity.

    Faced with that equation and a limited supply of vaccine what do you do short term?
    There's also the question of transmission. If the vaccine *does not* prevent transmission, everyone has to comply with the precautions, vaccination or no (and that is fine).

    If the vaccine *does* prevent transmission, then in the former case we have 2 people out of every 20 who can still spread the thing unknowingly. In the latter case, that rises to 8 people. This is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    mwadams said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I expect this is true of every other vaccine :.

    But Anna Durbin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was less confident about the levels of protection. In particular, she was skeptical a one-dose vaccine would be enough for older adults, who don’t always mount as strong an immune response as younger people.

    “I think it was a bit of a gamble to go with the single dose, and I think it was very responsible of the company to look at a two-dose regimen and a one-dose regimen,” said Durbin, an investigator in trials of the Pfizer vaccine and another testing a vaccine made by AstraZeneca.


    Please for the love of God let vulnerable people receive 2 doses of vaccine, 1 dose will probably suffice for fit under 50s that don't work amongst the covid +ve

    They will eventually - the issue is as I described last week is vaccinate 10 people twice and 9 have immunity, vaccinate 20 people once and 12 have immunity.

    Faced with that equation and a limited supply of vaccine what do you do short term?
    There's also the question of transmission. If the vaccine *does not* prevent transmission, everyone has to comply with the precautions, vaccination or no (and that is fine).

    If the vaccine *does* prevent transmission, then in the former case we have 2 people out of every 20 who can still spread the thing unknowingly. In the latter case, that rises to 8 people. This is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases.
    How is that any risk at the moment given that the advice is "Stay At Home".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
    He hasn't got one.

    I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.

    HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
    No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.

    If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/03/boris-johnson-no-second-scottish-independence-referendum-2055/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
    For the greater good. :D
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Perhaps publishing daily numbers was a mistake after all. Quite like for testing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    eek said:

    mwadams said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I expect this is true of every other vaccine :.

    But Anna Durbin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was less confident about the levels of protection. In particular, she was skeptical a one-dose vaccine would be enough for older adults, who don’t always mount as strong an immune response as younger people.

    “I think it was a bit of a gamble to go with the single dose, and I think it was very responsible of the company to look at a two-dose regimen and a one-dose regimen,” said Durbin, an investigator in trials of the Pfizer vaccine and another testing a vaccine made by AstraZeneca.


    Please for the love of God let vulnerable people receive 2 doses of vaccine, 1 dose will probably suffice for fit under 50s that don't work amongst the covid +ve

    They will eventually - the issue is as I described last week is vaccinate 10 people twice and 9 have immunity, vaccinate 20 people once and 12 have immunity.

    Faced with that equation and a limited supply of vaccine what do you do short term?
    There's also the question of transmission. If the vaccine *does not* prevent transmission, everyone has to comply with the precautions, vaccination or no (and that is fine).

    If the vaccine *does* prevent transmission, then in the former case we have 2 people out of every 20 who can still spread the thing unknowingly. In the latter case, that rises to 8 people. This is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases.
    How is that any risk at the moment given that the advice is "Stay At Home".
    I think if we were doing a two jab policy and had fully immunised 2m people and added 300k fully vaccinated people per day there would be a lot of pressure to let those people "go out and live life again" or something along those lines. The single jab policy definitely results in people having to stay at home for a much longer period of time, essentially until we've achieved some level of herd immunity.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,090
    eek said:

    mwadams said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I expect this is true of every other vaccine :.

    But Anna Durbin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was less confident about the levels of protection. In particular, she was skeptical a one-dose vaccine would be enough for older adults, who don’t always mount as strong an immune response as younger people.

    “I think it was a bit of a gamble to go with the single dose, and I think it was very responsible of the company to look at a two-dose regimen and a one-dose regimen,” said Durbin, an investigator in trials of the Pfizer vaccine and another testing a vaccine made by AstraZeneca.


    Please for the love of God let vulnerable people receive 2 doses of vaccine, 1 dose will probably suffice for fit under 50s that don't work amongst the covid +ve

    They will eventually - the issue is as I described last week is vaccinate 10 people twice and 9 have immunity, vaccinate 20 people once and 12 have immunity.

    Faced with that equation and a limited supply of vaccine what do you do short term?
    There's also the question of transmission. If the vaccine *does not* prevent transmission, everyone has to comply with the precautions, vaccination or no (and that is fine).

    If the vaccine *does* prevent transmission, then in the former case we have 2 people out of every 20 who can still spread the thing unknowingly. In the latter case, that rises to 8 people. This is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases.
    How is that any risk at the moment given that the advice is "Stay At Home".
    It isn't. The caveat was "this is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases". And through May, June, July, August, September that pressure *will* increase.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited January 2021

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
    Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.

    In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
    He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got.
    And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization.
    Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump.
    He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features.
    If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.

    If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
    I don't know when you last went to a beach, but lines in the sand tend not to be firm.
    With a majority of 80 they are, until 2024 Boris can and will do what he likes as PM
    And if what he likes is to save the union then he will take the fight to the separatists if they win a mandate for a new referendum.

    If he doesn't want to save the union he can doom it by not bothering. The separatists will have then de facto won and it will be a matter of when but not if the union ends.
    Constitionally if Boris says no there is sod all the SNP can do about it.

    If Starmer wants to grant indyref2 with devomax in 2024 that is up to him if he becomes PM, there will be no legal indyref2 from Boris and no indyref2 ensures the survival of the Union as long as he is PM by definition as the Union is a matter reserved for Westminster
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
    He hasn't got one.

    I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.

    HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
    No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.

    If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/03/boris-johnson-no-second-scottish-independence-referendum-2055/
    So the Tory party is now a cult and any discussion over a policy you may not like is reason enough for you to be thrown out.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
    Maybe there's something about deliveries on a Monday?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    mwadams said:

    eek said:

    mwadams said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I expect this is true of every other vaccine :.

    But Anna Durbin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was less confident about the levels of protection. In particular, she was skeptical a one-dose vaccine would be enough for older adults, who don’t always mount as strong an immune response as younger people.

    “I think it was a bit of a gamble to go with the single dose, and I think it was very responsible of the company to look at a two-dose regimen and a one-dose regimen,” said Durbin, an investigator in trials of the Pfizer vaccine and another testing a vaccine made by AstraZeneca.


    Please for the love of God let vulnerable people receive 2 doses of vaccine, 1 dose will probably suffice for fit under 50s that don't work amongst the covid +ve

    They will eventually - the issue is as I described last week is vaccinate 10 people twice and 9 have immunity, vaccinate 20 people once and 12 have immunity.

    Faced with that equation and a limited supply of vaccine what do you do short term?
    There's also the question of transmission. If the vaccine *does not* prevent transmission, everyone has to comply with the precautions, vaccination or no (and that is fine).

    If the vaccine *does* prevent transmission, then in the former case we have 2 people out of every 20 who can still spread the thing unknowingly. In the latter case, that rises to 8 people. This is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases.
    How is that any risk at the moment given that the advice is "Stay At Home".
    It isn't. The caveat was "this is a significant additional risk, if the pressure to let "vaccinated" people "do things" increases". And through May, June, July, August, September that pressure *will* increase.
    Yes, it will and by then we will have achieved a pretty good level of herd immunity. By May symptomatic COVID should be down to triple figures.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.

    Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
    You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
    He hasn't got one.

    I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.

    HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
    No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.

    If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/03/boris-johnson-no-second-scottish-independence-referendum-2055/
    So the Tory party is now a cult and any discussion over a policy you may not like is reason enough for you to be thrown out.
    Well in 2019 several Tory MPs were prevented from standing again for resisting Brexit by Boris certainly
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    edited January 2021

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
    Date of vaccination vs date of report? Or chasing the hard to get to in care homes?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    TimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.

    @ mysticrose: I used to let HYUFD's posts get under my skin. His absolute certainty on issues where they can be no certainty, his refusal to ever admit he's wrong and constantly trying to change and twist the field of battle to avoid being forced to, and his unfathomable faith in opinion polls as absolute harbingers (or at least the polls of a select few) - all got my blood pressure up.

    But then I realized there was no point in letting it get to me. Either ignore his posts, or let them flow over you.

    And, regardless of the above, I have come to realize he is an asset to this site:
    1. He posts a lot of interesting data, including latests opinion polls
    2. He gives a view into the mindset of a type of Tory I am not
    3. Occasionally, he posts something that really gets you thinking and questioning some of your unquestioned political assumptions. It may not change your mind, but it will make you validate your own previously unchallenged articles of political faith.
    He did admit he was wrong (several times) about the US election* and indeed about Bowtie Man Trafalgar. Despite this most PBers continually accuse him of never admitting he was wrong.




    *Strategically, predicting am EC tie was very unwise from someone who hates to admit he was wrong. It was 100/1 longshot outcome or some such.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?

    The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.

    You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
    HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
    While I have a lot of time for @HYUFD and I think the site is richer for his presence and his posts, nevertheless that parody you posted of him in typical HYUFD mode was bloody funny.

    I tried to find it but couldn't. Please re-post (daily, if necessary).
    It's vulgar to reuse your own material, and the effect will be less for repetition, but since you asked:

    -----
    The pointlessness of conversations with HYUFD:

    IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan.
    HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea?
    HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year
    IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea?
    HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital
    IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another
    HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital

    ad nauseum
    To be less vulgar you could make like President Jo and reuse Neil Kinnock's material :smile:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/short-history-political-plagiarism-melania-trump
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    edited January 2021
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    You know that poll was commissioned by James Kelly right, the bloke who you said had somehow finagled the results of his last poll?

    This is an interesting subsidiary question dontcha think?

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1351236452944900097?s=21
    Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.

    So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).

    On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
    'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
    43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.

    Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
    See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
    The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.

    The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
    You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

    I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.

    We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
    The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.

    What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.

    HYUFD sigh:

    Let's breakdown your post:

    1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)

    2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.

    2nd para - is an opinion

    Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:

    A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
    I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.

    As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
    But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.

    Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.

    I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.

    Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.

    Even your last post does it:

    'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.

    a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially
    b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.

    I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'

    I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.

    It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
    You actually said (cut and paste)

    'most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament'

    It was not possible to factually deduct that from the data. It was an opinion, that may or may not reasonably be assumed.

    That was the one and only point I was making.

    Do you agree?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2021
    Trump's catastrophe was not only that he was one of the first US politicians to tackle the failure of globalised capitalism for large parts of the US head on, but he was at the same time, as mentioned, uniquely badly qualified to do this. Not only did he try his hardest the divide rather than unite, but through his campaign on "fraud" he's partly destroyed trust in democracy itself.

    The unfortunate result of all this is that radical reform has, partly, been discredited, while the same new administration half the country are looking to to restore unity and civility, is looked on by much of other half both the as the continuation of corrupt business-as-usual - and there are certainly quite a few revolving-door corporate appointments in Biden's government's alongside the progressives ones - and the negation of democracy itself. It couldn't be more misaligned or assymetrical, but Biden has the chance to show he's doing something different, particularly if he allows people like Bernie Sanders a prominent role in things.
  • Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
    Date of vaccination vs date of report? Or chasing the hard to get to in care homes?
    Hope so...hope it isn't some sort of supply issue.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    What point do you think you are making here?

    The point that was made upthread.

    Some people were told they would get their second dose 3 weeks after their first.

    And then they were told it would be 12 weeks.

    And some died.

    I realise that is complex logic for a Brexiteer but try harder.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
    Date of vaccination vs date of report? Or chasing the hard to get to in care homes?
    A mixture of both, I actually think that's why the government has started the over 70s vaccinations because they need the pool of easy to reach punters to keep the programme going at a high enough rate to meet the target.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    RobD said:

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Perhaps publishing daily numbers was a mistake after all. Quite like for testing.
    Disagree. Keeps the government under constant pressure, which is a good thing. Let's keep the focus resolutely on the vax programme, whether or not daily assessments are strictly 'fair'.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone will get two doses.

    Except the ones who die inbetween
    On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
    Presuming that the maths are correct.

    We know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly. How that affects the level of immunity in our targeted group of the over eighties after a single shot, no one knows. The evidence from Israel suggests a 33% level of protection in the third week after a single Pfizer.

    I am a bit surprised that anyone has yet had time to die yet from a delayed second shot. The policy came in on 4th Jan, so the longest delay would now be 6 weeks. Catching covid, getting sick enough to be admitted and dying takes a couple of weeks. I would be interested in @Scott_P's source. I wouldn't think that we would find out about any cases for another few weeks at least.
    Given the population being vaccinated, I'd be very surprised if quite large number don't die while waiting for their second shot.
    And demonstrating that any have died from a delayed second shot is, as you say, likely to take quite some time (and to be a non trivial exercise even after the event).
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic.

    Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.

    But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.

    Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

    I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
    I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
    Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.

    In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
    He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got.
    And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization.
    Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump.
    He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features.
    If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
    I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_xP said:

    What point do you think you are making here?

    The point that was made upthread.

    Some people were told they would get their second dose 3 weeks after their first.

    And then they were told it would be 12 weeks.

    And some died.

    I realise that is complex logic for a Brexiteer but try harder.
    Because on balance fewer would die taking this approach. No one ever claimed that the policy would result in no deaths, just fewer deaths.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Scott_xP said:

    What point do you think you are making here?

    The point that was made upthread.

    Some people were told they would get their second dose 3 weeks after their first.

    And then they were told it would be 12 weeks.

    And some died.

    I realise that is complex logic for a Brexiteer but try harder.
    And in Europe, most people aren't getting a single dose and loads of them are dying waiting for any kind of protection from the virus. You really should stick to copying other people from twatter, every single time you try original thought it doesn't work out for you.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    MaxPB said:

    Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).

    Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
    It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.

    It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
This discussion has been closed.