Sounds like keeping the pressure on. I can believe he could tip that way, but it depends on how Trump acts about it after he is out of office as well as in - I expect he wants Trump to not interfere much in the party. It'd be nice to think Mitch found the line not to be crossed though.
His words on mandates makes me think it is a warning to Biden that if he tries too much too fast, he won't convict. Not sure Biden would mind, he has other things to worry about.
Biden isn't going to rush the impeachment trial, there are 100 days (minimum) of far more important things to do first
Not up to Biden when it happens I thought? I was thinking more how many executive actions he takes and what they are.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
Look around Anglesey and it is hard to imagine it has ever been in good economic shape. Still, a lovely place to see Chough.
Wylfa / Anglesey Aluminium...
Wylfa - decommissioned Magnox plant. Might be the site of the new Rolls Royce mini nukes. (No bugger else wants them in their constituency.)
That area used to be the place to go look for Roseate Terns in Wales.
Did the biomass plant happen on the site of the the Angelesey Aluminium smelter?
He'd surely like to prevent Trump standing again as he sees it as best to cut him off for the long term prospects of the GOP. He's also plainly furious.
But he's left open the option of the line "the behaviour of the President, while foolish, did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in my considered view having heard all the evidence".
I think he'll only vote to convict if the numbers are there. He's very calculated and think he'd see a narrow acquittal falling a few votes short of 2/3rds (e.g. by 60-40 or something) as the worst of all worlds. It would leave Trump free to run and to assert victory over the traditional GOP. He's not like Murkowski, who isn't that interested in the GOP's future and just wants to position herself as an independent minded Alaskan.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
IIRC we used charge £10 a day for EU trucks to use our roads, was introduced by the coalition.
It seems that this is correct and "charges vary between £1.70 and £10 per day." The higher figure is for a one-off journey, repeated journeys are cheaper so professional hauliers will buy a license
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
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.
Well more fool you then. Because that analysis was correct and even though I agree he didn't give a shit, it doesn't mean those problems have gone away and if you ignore them because "Trump" then we may not be so lucky next time and might find the next person to use these issues without really caring about them is a lot brighter and a lot more convincing than Trump and also, because of that, a lot more dangerous.
So you should be very interested. Otherwise you are a big part of the problem.
I agree there are economic drivers for WWC Trump voters, and these issues are important, although I suspect their salience is exaggerated compared to the identity shit. But Trump himself has no clue about economic issues, and even less interest in them. So I am interested in the analysis but am not interested in hearing that "Trump was correct in HIS analysis." It's a subtle thing but it's important. Anybody starts going on about Trump being "correct in his analysis" should rewrite to "there are real issues that sent voters his way and these issues do not disappear with him."
Sounds like keeping the pressure on. I can believe he could tip that way, but it depends on how Trump acts about it after he is out of office as well as in - I expect he wants Trump to not interfere much in the party. It'd be nice to think Mitch found the line not to be crossed though.
His words on mandates makes me think it is a warning to Biden that if he tries too much too fast, he won't convict. Not sure Biden would mind, he has other things to worry about.
Biden isn't going to rush the impeachment trial, there are 100 days (minimum) of far more important things to do first
Not up to Biden when it happens I thought? I was thinking more how many executive actions he takes and what they are.
It kind of is, as Pelosi has it in her pocket to take round to the Senate when she feels like it, and I imagine she'll consult Biden about that.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
Brexit has seen a massive and rapid switch of supply in Ireland from the UK to the Continent. It's not just continental traffic using the Land Bridge. UK exports to Ireland have collapsed. There are just a handful of trucks on each sailing from Holyhead now.
The interesting point is that we can put a price on the extra barriers to trade. The new 24 hour crossings from France will come higher ticket prices than the three hour crossings from Wales. You have to pay a day's extra rent on the truck and trailer and also for the driver time. Even so it's worth it to avoid importing from the UK.
Not sure what's going to happen the other way. It will be hurting Ireland's exports as well. I think the problem is they are not getting the flow of trucks to do the round trip to the UK.
Your insurance is going up too. I wouldn't want to be rounding Land's End on a regular basis, year round.
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Sounds like keeping the pressure on. I can believe he could tip that way, but it depends on how Trump acts about it after he is out of office as well as in - I expect he wants Trump to not interfere much in the party. It'd be nice to think Mitch found the line not to be crossed though.
His words on mandates makes me think it is a warning to Biden that if he tries too much too fast, he won't convict. Not sure Biden would mind, he has other things to worry about.
Biden isn't going to rush the impeachment trial, there are 100 days (minimum) of far more important things to do first
Not up to Biden when it happens I thought? I was thinking more how many executive actions he takes and what they are.
It kind of is, as Pelosi has it in her pocket to take round to the Senate when she feels like it, and I imagine she'll consult Biden about that.
As you say the Democrats control the time it arrives and occurs. No need to rush when there is a pandemic to fix first.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
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 are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
The identification of HYUFD with Rod Stewart is just the sort of offbeat entertainment anyone might ask for on a drab weekday afternoon.
Rod Stewart is the person I tend to first think of when I think about celebrity. Reason being because he used to eat at a chinese restaurant that I also used a lot and I often saw him there with his entourage. Always a frisson around his table and you could tell he was very comfortable with the whole star thing. I don't mean this in a bad way, just that he liked it.
I wonder if @HYUFD is actually a Rod Stewart fan. That would be quite something if he is, given what we now know.
Rod was a fellow Epping Forest resident and he votes Tory I understand
When he has genius like this at his fingertips, one might forgive him the odd defect such as voting Conservative (and you don't actually know that, anyway: 'understand' is one of those give-away words, like 'plurality' and 'percentage of votes' when talking about the HoC where seats count).
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
Sounds like keeping the pressure on. I can believe he could tip that way, but it depends on how Trump acts about it after he is out of office as well as in - I expect he wants Trump to not interfere much in the party. It'd be nice to think Mitch found the line not to be crossed though.
His words on mandates makes me think it is a warning to Biden that if he tries too much too fast, he won't convict. Not sure Biden would mind, he has other things to worry about.
Biden isn't going to rush the impeachment trial, there are 100 days (minimum) of far more important things to do first
Not up to Biden when it happens I thought? I was thinking more how many executive actions he takes and what they are.
No but he has influence. Biden is an instinctive dealmaker. His main priority will be to get his appointments and programme through. If he can cut a deal with a section of the opposition, good, else he can hold the threat of intrusive investigations over the heads of obstructionist congressmen and women.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
Rubbish. England is just occupied Wales according to @YBarddCwsc
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Although you'd need to adjust for age to make a fair comparison.
Also need to adjust that Black Africans are often highly academically qualified. In the USA they are the group most likely to have a PhD.
Is that true? I'd be surprised. In the US, isn't it people of Chinese origin who are most academically qualified? In any case, I very much doubt that it is true in the UK.
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 are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
I think we need a separate ironic like button.
I've often wished for an eye-roll button.
--AS
There's an emoji, I believe ?
I am much too old to use emoji. I only speak ASCII :]
--AS
& # x 1 f 6 4 4 ; without the spaces.
Thus 🙄
What is this witchcraft - unicode? Not on my browser, thank you very much!
7-bit ASCII is good enough for Don Knuth, so I refuse to recognize the existence of characters beyond it...
--AS
I refer the honourable gentleman to his comment of the 7th inst. in which he uses ASCII character number 163, to whit the pound sign.
We don't want to be too rigid about achieving the perfect order of vaccination. The end state is the same - vaccinating everyone - and it's not important to do it quickly than in the right order.
So the vaccination program needs to balance injecting people in priority order with using doses as soon as they are available.
Agree - "Missed" people in various groups can be backfilled into the next cohort.
Backfilling someone with a needle sounds uncomfortable
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
Rubbish. England is just occupied Wales according to @YBarddCwsc
Yes, I know that. England is the bit in the south part of Jutland. Most of the continent-Britain traffic comes from Esbjerg and consists of friendly sailors in horned helmets wielding long oars. Come on, this is basic stuff.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
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 are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
I think we need a separate ironic like button.
I've often wished for an eye-roll button.
--AS
There's an emoji, I believe ?
I am much too old to use emoji. I only speak ASCII :]
--AS
& # x 1 f 6 4 4 ; without the spaces.
Thus 🙄
What is this witchcraft - unicode? Not on my browser, thank you very much!
7-bit ASCII is good enough for Don Knuth, so I refuse to recognize the existence of characters beyond it...
--AS
I refer the honourable gentleman to his comment of the 7th inst. in which he uses ASCII character number 163, to whit the pound sign.
Busted.
From now on I'll use \pounds, making my posts properly portable.
'We would instead be one of the great majority of countries who are on the receiving end of the decisions made by a few, subject to the values of others.'
I don't think a tiny violin quite covers the comic element of self regarding exceptionalism; perhaps a tiny trombone?
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 are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
I think we need a separate ironic like button.
I've often wished for an eye-roll button.
--AS
There's an emoji, I believe ?
I am much too old to use emoji. I only speak ASCII :]
--AS
& # x 1 f 6 4 4 ; without the spaces.
Thus 🙄
What is this witchcraft - unicode? Not on my browser, thank you very much!
7-bit ASCII is good enough for Don Knuth, so I refuse to recognize the existence of characters beyond it...
--AS
I refer the honourable gentleman to his comment of the 7th inst. in which he uses ASCII character number 163, to whit the pound sign.
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Although you'd need to adjust for age to make a fair comparison.
Also need to adjust that Black Africans are often highly academically qualified. In the USA they are the group most likely to have a PhD.
Comparing University Professors to the general population is pretty meaningless.
Because, at that level, University hires are often done internationally.
Many groups are way over-represented among University Professors as compared to the general population -- to take an obvious and uncontroversial example, Russians.
Russian scientists have a choice between starvation wages at a Russian University, or coming to the West.
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Although you'd need to adjust for age to make a fair comparison.
Also need to adjust that Black Africans are often highly academically qualified. In the USA they are the group most likely to have a PhD.
Is that true? I'd be surprised. In the US, isn't it people of Chinese origin who are most academically qualified? In any case, I very much doubt that it is true in the UK.
The relevant stat for Black Professors is % of black people in the same age group as professors. As mentioned.
That's a comparison the Beeboids miss nearly every time. The trend still holds but somewhat less dramatically usually.
There are figures by decade vs ethnicity somewhere.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
As the list seats are by region and there are more constituency than list seats, getting more constituency seats than the list seat vote should get you very much is a possibility. Even more so with split ticketing, i.e. SNP for the constituency and Green for the list.
He'd surely like to prevent Trump standing again as he sees it as best to cut him off for the long term prospects of the GOP. He's also plainly furious.
But he's left open the option of the line "the behaviour of the President, while foolish, did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in my considered view having heard all the evidence".
I think he'll only vote to convict if the numbers are there. He's very calculated and think he'd see a narrow acquittal falling a few votes short of 2/3rds (e.g. by 60-40 or something) as the worst of all worlds. It would leave Trump free to run and to assert victory over the traditional GOP. He's not like Murkowski, who isn't that interested in the GOP's future and just wants to position herself as an independent minded Alaskan.
I wonder if the Liz Cheney example will be instructive. In all sorts of trouble with Wyoming GOP and almost certainly to be primaried for her stand.
And not a good time to have significant interests in China.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
News full of past president's finest moments. "Ask not what your country will do for you....." Trump isn't coming out of this well. Talk about kicking a man when he's down. Time for a stiff letter from Mr Ed......
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Although you'd need to adjust for age to make a fair comparison.
Also need to adjust that Black Africans are often highly academically qualified. In the USA they are the group most likely to have a PhD.
Is that true? I'd be surprised. In the US, isn't it people of Chinese origin who are most academically qualified? In any case, I very much doubt that it is true in the UK.
"According to the U.S census about 43.8 percent of African immigrants achieved the most college degrees, compared to 42.5 percent of Asian-Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.[15][16][17]"
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
Rubbish. England is just occupied Wales according to @YBarddCwsc
Not just England. Don't forget Southern Scotland & Brittany as well.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
As the list seats are by region and there are more constituency than list seats, getting more constituency seats than the list seat vote should get you very much is a possibility. Even more so with split ticketing, i.e. SNP for the constituency and Green for the list.
From memory a lot of the SNP members I know vote that way - SNP will get a lot of dual ticket votes from non members so they split theirs to help their mates.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
Boris has made perfectly clear that he will refuse a legal indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
And my point is that if we peddle in tat, we'll be paid in tit. If we hike transportation costs between Ireland and the continent, what might happen to trucks going between Britain and the continent? Who wins in this exchange? Not consumers, nor businesses. Nobody wants to live near a big busy polluted road, but we all want the things that travel in the backs of those trucks.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
Boris has made perfectly clear that he will refuse a legal indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
The over-70s face uncertainty over vaccination appointments as GPs who are ready to offer the jabs complain that supplies are being diverted.
Elderly people are also being given appointments at mass vaccination centres a long way from home and overlapping with slots allocated by their local GPs.
As ministers announced new mass vaccination centres and an extension of the programme a patchwork picture emerged with some family doctors yet to reach all their over-80s and others desperate for further doses to give.
The announcement that vaccines were to be made available to the over-70s and the clinically extremely vulnerable caught many practices by surprise yesterday morning. Doctors and practice managers expressed anger that news of the extension was released to the media first.
The Institute of General Practice Management said GPs’ phones across the country were “jammed with patients in the extended cohorts asking us how and when they can book their vaccinations”.
In a letter to Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the practice managers warned that the situation was “stopping those in need of care getting through and leaving our teams answering questions that we could have been better prepared for”.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
Boris has made perfectly clear that he will refuse a legal indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
I have a feeling you've made this point before?
Only a million times, not leastd the deliberatye confuscatiuon of intention to vote yesx with the percentage who want to have a referendum (which is actdually larger).
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
Boris has made perfectly clear that he will refuse a legal indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
What moral authority did David Cameron have in that case to call a Brexit referendum on 36% of the vote?
SNP only 3% up on their 2019 Westminster total and only 1.5% up on their 2016 Holyrood total on that poll and in danger of failing to win an outright majority in May
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AMS system that they use involves the lists totally compensating for lack of proportionality in the constituency vote, so in terms of working out likely majorities, one can pretty much ignoire the constituency vote (the exception would be if there simply weren't enough seats to compensate for a constituency sweep).
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
That probably would but the SNP failing to win an outright majority as they got in 2011 and falling below 50% of the popular vote and failing to even match the 50% they got in 2015 before Brexit let alone exceed it would be a major blow to Sturgeon and add to the civil war within SNP ranks.
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
As always, you deliberately forget that a 'majority; in Westminster means numbers of seats..
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
Boris has made perfectly clear that he will refuse a legal indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
What moral authority did David Cameron have in that case to call a Brexit referendum on 36% of the vote?
He won a general election with an overall majority, the Tory and UKIP combined vote was 50% in 2015 and the last EEC/EU referendum was 40 years before in 1975 ie a genuine generation.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
And my point is that if we peddle in tat, we'll be paid in tit. If we hike transportation costs between Ireland and the continent, what might happen to trucks going between Britain and the continent? Who wins in this exchange? Not consumers, nor businesses. Nobody wants to live near a big busy polluted road, but we all want the things that travel in the backs of those trucks.
I don't want the things in the back of trucks.
If the English want them, there are docks at Liverpool or Bristol for the Irish truckers to use.
The over-70s face uncertainty over vaccination appointments as GPs who are ready to offer the jabs complain that supplies are being diverted.
Elderly people are also being given appointments at mass vaccination centres a long way from home and overlapping with slots allocated by their local GPs.
As ministers announced new mass vaccination centres and an extension of the programme a patchwork picture emerged with some family doctors yet to reach all their over-80s and others desperate for further doses to give.
The announcement that vaccines were to be made available to the over-70s and the clinically extremely vulnerable caught many practices by surprise yesterday morning. Doctors and practice managers expressed anger that news of the extension was released to the media first.
The Institute of General Practice Management said GPs’ phones across the country were “jammed with patients in the extended cohorts asking us how and when they can book their vaccinations”.
In a letter to Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the practice managers warned that the situation was “stopping those in need of care getting through and leaving our teams answering questions that we could have been better prepared for”.
Sounds like Doctors being Doctors to me. After you get through 1 cohort, the next is going to follow as night follows day...
The difference might be attitude.
When this started, back in March, my GP read the regulations and interpreted the "on behalf of" bit about registering patients as vulnerable, as meaning she could. So she put all hands to the pumps going through the patient list to register everyone as vulnerable who was.
Which meant that those boxes of food started showing up at little old ladies doors much earlier for her patients.
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.
Well more fool you then. Because that analysis was correct and even though I agree he didn't give a shit, it doesn't mean those problems have gone away and if you ignore them because "Trump" then we may not be so lucky next time and might find the next person to use these issues without really caring about them is a lot brighter and a lot more convincing than Trump and also, because of that, a lot more dangerous.
So you should be very interested. Otherwise you are a big part of the problem.
I agree there are economic drivers for WWC Trump voters, and these issues are important, although I suspect their salience is exaggerated compared to the identity shit. But Trump himself has no clue about economic issues, and even less interest in them. So I am interested in the analysis but am not interested in hearing that "Trump was correct in HIS analysis." It's a subtle thing but it's important. Anybody starts going on about Trump being "correct in his analysis" should rewrite to "there are real issues that sent voters his way and these issues do not disappear with him."
Well firstly as I pointed out in my thread header last week it is not primarily WWC driving support for Trump it is the Middle Classes. And no these things are not exaggerated. You only have to look at the collapse of Middle Class incomes to see that.
Secondly of course Trump identified this - or his advisors did which is the same thing. That is why he went for those targets. He may have had no intention of actually doing anything meaningful about it but that doesn't mean he didn't see what the problem was - or at least what his target audience thought the problem was.
Like I said, your tendency to play these things down just because they formed a large part of Trumps appeal to nearly half the US voters is why you - or at last people like you in the States - are as much part of the problem as he is. By disregarding or trivialising the real concerns felt by tens of millions of Americans you are making sure that another Trump - probably a much more devious and dangerous version - gains power sooner rather than later.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
I don't know why you are so exercised. Welsh Labour AMs would just spend your windfall on booze in the Senedd bar anyway!
I would be very grateful to receive IT advice re- a problem which has come to light recently. Over the last month I have been getting odd emails which appear to be in reply to messages sent by myself. In reality, such messages have not been sent by me at all! In the last 24 hours my accounts with Ladbrokes and all other firms under the same umbrella have been closed following a security review. Within the last hour I happened to access the 'sent' items of my email account - and have found hundreds - possibly thousands- of messages being generated by my account in just the last ten days. None have been sent by me! Is this simply a case of having been 'hacked'? Is there an obvious solution? Thanks in advance.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
And my point is that if we peddle in tat, we'll be paid in tit. If we hike transportation costs between Ireland and the continent, what might happen to trucks going between Britain and the continent? Who wins in this exchange? Not consumers, nor businesses. Nobody wants to live near a big busy polluted road, but we all want the things that travel in the backs of those trucks.
I would be very grateful to receive IT advice re- a problem which has come to light recently. Over the last month I have been getting odd emails which appear to be in reply to messages sent by myself. In reality, such messages have not been sent by me at all! In the last 24 hours my accounts with Ladbrokes and all other firms under the same umbrella have been closed following a security review. Within the last hour I happened to access the 'sent' items of my email account - and have found hundreds - possibly thousands- of messages being generated by my account in just the last ten days. None have been sent by me! Is this simply a case of having been 'hacked'? Is there an obvious solution? Thanks in advance.
Burn your PC, change your name, hide. It's the only way to be sure.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
Which would be fine if it were simply the through traffic. It isn't.
If the English want Irish trucks trundling through England at £1.55 a time, then perhaps England can use one of the Lancashire ports.
There are docks at Liverpool.
You do know, I assume, that trucks bound for Wales from the continent usually pass through England?
The question -- as rcs1000 has indicated -- is whether the Irish truckers were paying a fair amount for using England & Wales as a land bridge in the first place.
I don't know why you are so exercised. Welsh Labour AMs would just spend your windfall on booze in the Senedd bar anyway!
Actually, it seems three of my least favourite AMs have been caught up in this.
If only RT was there as well .... I suppose we can't have everything.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
The problem with the port is that it's used - from time-to-time - by Middle-Class-Remain-Voting-Skiers. Shutting it down is therefore in the interests of the Welsh.
He'd surely like to prevent Trump standing again as he sees it as best to cut him off for the long term prospects of the GOP. He's also plainly furious.
But he's left open the option of the line "the behaviour of the President, while foolish, did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in my considered view having heard all the evidence".
I think he'll only vote to convict if the numbers are there. He's very calculated and think he'd see a narrow acquittal falling a few votes short of 2/3rds (e.g. by 60-40 or something) as the worst of all worlds. It would leave Trump free to run and to assert victory over the traditional GOP. He's not like Murkowski, who isn't that interested in the GOP's future and just wants to position herself as an independent minded Alaskan.
I wonder if the Liz Cheney example will be instructive. In all sorts of trouble with Wyoming GOP and almost certainly to be primaried for her stand.
And not a good time to have significant interests in China.
House and Senate members have very different calculations involved for several reasons.
No GOP Congressmen had much to gain from a vote to impeach - it was happening anyway so it was easy enough to keep your head down. You can agree or not with Liz Cheney and nine others... but you can't deny it was a principled move on their part. None of them reduced their risk of being primaried (albeit one or two might have stood to gain a little at a general election).
Senators aren't in that position - if 17 of 50 GOP Senators break from Trump, he's out of the picture in 2024. That creates a risk but also creates an incentive if you think it's a death cult that guarantees years in the wilderness for your party, or indeed if you have ambitions yourself. So lots riding on how GOP Senators jump, very little on Congressmen.
Additionally, all House seats are up in 2022, most GOP Congressmen will want to stand in that election, and any could be primaried. It's much more varied for Senators. GOP are defending 20 Senate seats in 2022, but two of those (Burr and Toomey) are retiring - and there may be a couple at least undeclared on top of that (e.g. Grassley is ancient and Shelby is very old). Murkowski has won as a write in before having been successfully primaried, and the electoral system changes make it easier for her, so she's not bothered. Others are well established enough to fancy their odds, and the other 30 have a long way to go until they face re-election (and may never do so - several will be retiring in 2024 or 2026). Add it up and there are quite a few where primary leverage means a lot less than for most Congressmen.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
The problem with the port is that it's used - from time-to-time - by Middle-Class-Remain-Voting-Skiers. Shutting it down is therefore in the interests of the Welsh.
BBC surprised that only 1% of university professors are black. The percentage of people in the general population who are black is about 2%, but you get the impression the people writing the article in London haven't checked on that.
Although you'd need to adjust for age to make a fair comparison.
Also need to adjust that Black Africans are often highly academically qualified. In the USA they are the group most likely to have a PhD.
Is that true? I'd be surprised. In the US, isn't it people of Chinese origin who are most academically qualified? In any case, I very much doubt that it is true in the UK.
"According to the U.S census about 43.8 percent of African immigrants achieved the most college degrees, compared to 42.5 percent of Asian-Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.[15][16][17]"
I would be very grateful to receive IT advice re- a problem which has come to light recently. Over the last month I have been getting odd emails which appear to be in reply to messages sent by myself. In reality, such messages have not been sent by me at all! In the last 24 hours my accounts with Ladbrokes and all other firms under the same umbrella have been closed following a security review. Within the last hour I happened to access the 'sent' items of my email account - and have found hundreds - possibly thousands- of messages being generated by my account in just the last ten days. None have been sent by me! Is this simply a case of having been 'hacked'? Is there an obvious solution? Thanks in advance.
Change every password you have, immediately. For everything you do online.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
The problem with the port is that it's used - from time-to-time - by Middle-Class-Remain-Voting-Skiers. Shutting it down is therefore in the interests of the Welsh.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
The problem with the port is that it's used - from time-to-time - by Middle-Class-Remain-Voting-Skiers. Shutting it down is therefore in the interests of the Welsh.
The problem with Pembrokeshire is that there are no decent jobs for locals, there is a proliferation of holiday homes, and there is an influx of elderly retirees.
I would start by fixing the second, which would be easy to do if the political will were there.
There's a new lawsuit filed by some Trumpers, and it's glorious
6.The 20th Amendment mandates that President Trump’s term must end at noon on January 20th, but since Congress’s act on January 6, 2021 in confirming Joseph Biden as President-Elect was clearly illegitimate,and there is effectively no lawfully existing Legislative Branch this means that the Presidential Inauguration cannot lawfully go forward on Wednesday. !!! Thankfully !!!, there is still time for the only lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official, President Donald Trump to take all reasonable and necessary action consistent with the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 1 and all the original intents and purposes of the Constitution of the United States to preserve the lawful and orderly continuity of government 7. Accordingly, this Court should rest assured that the relief requested in this lawsuit will not result in the destruction of democracy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I would be very grateful to receive IT advice re- a problem which has come to light recently. Over the last month I have been getting odd emails which appear to be in reply to messages sent by myself. In reality, such messages have not been sent by me at all! In the last 24 hours my accounts with Ladbrokes and all other firms under the same umbrella have been closed following a security review. Within the last hour I happened to access the 'sent' items of my email account - and have found hundreds - possibly thousands- of messages being generated by my account in just the last ten days. None have been sent by me! Is this simply a case of having been 'hacked'? Is there an obvious solution? Thanks in advance.
Change every password you have, immediately. For everything you do online.
One problem with *email* account having been hacked is that it is used as part of the "forgotten password" reset mechanism on almost every website on the planet so yes, as @Malmesbury says, change everything, and make sure you do not use the same password on different sites. Consider using a password manager to keep track of them, and use that manager's random password generator.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What's your understanding of the economic implications costs and benefits of truckers passing through North Wales, Big G?
I can tell you from first hand experience that you can always tell when an Irish ferry has docked in Holyhead, and you are driving out of North Wales, there are convoys of HGVs heading for non stop for the English borders adding to the pollution and noise and traffic congestion
Of course some jobs may go in Holyhead and investment is needed as Angleseys is not in good economic shape at the moment
"Of course some jobs may go".
"Fuck business"
If you want to provide the cost/benefit analysis for Wales, then I am interested to see it.
Let those people who want trucks trundling along the A55 demonstrate that it is in Wales' benefit.
How much of the £1.55 per truck comes to Wales.
If it is done pro rata on population, its is 1.55*3/66 .... 7p
So, Wales gets 7p per Irish truck that trundles along the A55. Seven pence a truck ... and we have GeorgeOsborneGenius to thank for this, along with TSE and George's Gang.
That isn't breaking even.
If the Irish want their trucks to trundle through Wales, they need to pay decent money -- otherwise let them use the sea.
The presence of trucks crossing from Rosslare to Pembroke Dock keeps the Port open. There aren't enough private drivers and foot traffic keep the ferry from running. It's all down to jobs really. When the Dock closes the unemployment will be even worse in Pembs.
The problem with the port is that it's used - from time-to-time - by Middle-Class-Remain-Voting-Skiers. Shutting it down is therefore in the interests of the Welsh.
The problem with Pembrokeshire is that there are no decent jobs for locals, there is a proliferation of holiday homes, and there is an influx of elderly retirees.
I would start by fixing the second, which would be easy to do if the political will were there.
There aren't as many Holiday Homes as you may thin, Ceredigion and Gwynedd are much worse.
President Trump needs to pardon someone soon to stop me getting bored, and he should start with the MAGA numpties who stormed the Capitol. Otherwise more than a hundred defence lawyers will be blaming the President for inciting them, alongside more than a few Republican Congressmen so it is in the GOP's interest to make this go away.
There's a new lawsuit filed by some Trumpers, and it's glorious
6.The 20th Amendment mandates that President Trump’s term must end at noon on January 20th, but since Congress’s act on January 6, 2021 in confirming Joseph Biden as President-Elect was clearly illegitimate,and there is effectively no lawfully existing Legislative Branch this means that the Presidential Inauguration cannot lawfully go forward on Wednesday. !!! Thankfully !!!, there is still time for the only lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official, President Donald Trump to take all reasonable and necessary action consistent with the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 1 and all the original intents and purposes of the Constitution of the United States to preserve the lawful and orderly continuity of government 7. Accordingly, this Court should rest assured that the relief requested in this lawsuit will not result in the destruction of democracy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Maybe they are the ones laying the 1.01 Trump to leave office in 2021.
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.
Ah yes, that must be why Trump did double the number of Drone strikes in 2 years that Obama did in 8.
And removed the requirement to report civilian casualties.
Note that previously the FLOTUS with the lowest polling numbers at the end of her husband's last term was . . . wait for it . . . Hillary Clinton.
Hillary left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with net FLOTUS job approval of +13% (Fav 52%, Unfav 39%)
By contrast, Melania departs with net job approval of -5% (Fav 42%, Unfav 47%)
Whenever I think of the First Ladies of the United States, I always think of my mother. And what SHE thought of them, or rather the ones that were in the White House at some point in her own life.
She admired - in one way or another - ALL of the First Ladies from Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan. With her view of THEM being divorced - certainly from Mamie Eisenhower forward - from her opinion of their husbands.
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).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
IIRC? Exactly how old are you, Malmesbury?
Malmesbury is no ordinary poster, I have long sensed this. He is as old as the Hills and is also able to shapeshift at will. Hence the olympian wisdom, ancient and modern, science and arts, dispensed on a regular basis, plus the BIG giveaway - the fact he has personally known and had quality conversations with every raving left wing hypocrite who has ever lived.
I kept getting distracted by your posts @kinabalu so They assigned another lizard to this site
Comments
That area used to be the place to go look for Roseate Terns in Wales.
Did the biomass plant happen on the site of the the Angelesey Aluminium smelter?
But he's left open the option of the line "the behaviour of the President, while foolish, did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors in my considered view having heard all the evidence".
I think he'll only vote to convict if the numbers are there. He's very calculated and think he'd see a narrow acquittal falling a few votes short of 2/3rds (e.g. by 60-40 or something) as the worst of all worlds. It would leave Trump free to run and to assert victory over the traditional GOP. He's not like Murkowski, who isn't that interested in the GOP's future and just wants to position herself as an independent minded Alaskan.
https://twitter.com/CFoKashmir/status/1351555247894900737?s=20
There are docks at Liverpool.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50403561
I think that might be a Liberty ship in dock, actually - spot on for time.
That said, the confidence and supply deal with the Greens should keep them safely in office.
Most of the continent-Britain traffic comes from Esbjerg and consists of friendly sailors in horned helmets wielding long oars.
Come on, this is basic stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI
Boris would then easily brush off calls for indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament
From now on I'll use \pounds, making my posts properly portable.
--AS
I don't think a tiny violin quite covers the comic element of self regarding exceptionalism; perhaps a tiny trombone?
Because, at that level, University hires are often done internationally.
Many groups are way over-represented among University Professors as compared to the general population -- to take an obvious and uncontroversial example, Russians.
Russian scientists have a choice between starvation wages at a Russian University, or coming to the West.
That's a comparison the Beeboids miss nearly every time. The trend still holds but somewhat less dramatically usually.
There are figures by decade vs ethnicity somewhere.
And not a good time to have significant interests in China.
And you also deliberately forget - ypou have been told many times - that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence.
Away and play with your toys. Only £15 for a Suez Crisis era one -
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dinky-660-Thornycroft-Mighty-Antar-Tank-Transporter-651-Centurion-Tank-Army/265020172330?hash=item3db46ee82a:g:XREAAOSwZ51gBxJz
It will be Broth next.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsNI/status/1351240181173641217
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
It wouldn't surprise me it being similar here. Lots of West African postgraduate students around.
But, I did offer to give you back Wrexham.
Whether the SNP can continue in office with the Greens is just a matter for Scottish domestic politics, the SNP falling below 50% of the vote and without an SNP majority means they lack even a moral authority to ask Boris for indyref2
Nobody wants to live near a big busy polluted road, but we all want the things that travel in the backs of those trucks.
After you get through 1 cohort, the next is going to follow as night follows day...
https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1351590227496886275?s=09
If the English want them, there are docks at Liverpool or Bristol for the Irish truckers to use.
Let's reclaim Ynys Mon for the roseate terns.
When this started, back in March, my GP read the regulations and interpreted the "on behalf of" bit about registering patients as vulnerable, as meaning she could. So she put all hands to the pumps going through the patient list to register everyone as vulnerable who was.
Which meant that those boxes of food started showing up at little old ladies doors much earlier for her patients.
Other GPs didn't do this, I understand.
Secondly of course Trump identified this - or his advisors did which is the same thing. That is why he went for those targets. He may have had no intention of actually doing anything meaningful about it but that doesn't mean he didn't see what the problem was - or at least what his target audience thought the problem was.
Like I said, your tendency to play these things down just because they formed a large part of Trumps appeal to nearly half the US voters is why you - or at last people like you in the States - are as much part of the problem as he is. By disregarding or trivialising the real concerns felt by tens of millions of Americans you are making sure that another Trump - probably a much more devious and dangerous version - gains power sooner rather than later.
Over the last month I have been getting odd emails which appear to be in reply to messages sent by myself. In reality, such messages have not been sent by me at all! In the last 24 hours my accounts with Ladbrokes and all other firms under the same umbrella have been closed following a security review.
Within the last hour I happened to access the 'sent' items of my email account - and have found hundreds - possibly thousands- of messages being generated by my account in just the last ten days. None have been sent by me! Is this simply a case of having been 'hacked'? Is there an obvious solution? Thanks in advance.
Hopefully that means we'll get a lot more detail on it in the coming days with age, region and event date breakdowns.
If only RT was there as well .... I suppose we can't have everything.
No GOP Congressmen had much to gain from a vote to impeach - it was happening anyway so it was easy enough to keep your head down. You can agree or not with Liz Cheney and nine others... but you can't deny it was a principled move on their part. None of them reduced their risk of being primaried (albeit one or two might have stood to gain a little at a general election).
Senators aren't in that position - if 17 of 50 GOP Senators break from Trump, he's out of the picture in 2024. That creates a risk but also creates an incentive if you think it's a death cult that guarantees years in the wilderness for your party, or indeed if you have ambitions yourself. So lots riding on how GOP Senators jump, very little on Congressmen.
Additionally, all House seats are up in 2022, most GOP Congressmen will want to stand in that election, and any could be primaried. It's much more varied for Senators. GOP are defending 20 Senate seats in 2022, but two of those (Burr and Toomey) are retiring - and there may be a couple at least undeclared on top of that (e.g. Grassley is ancient and Shelby is very old). Murkowski has won as a write in before having been successfully primaried, and the electoral system changes make it easier for her, so she's not bothered. Others are well established enough to fancy their odds, and the other 30 have a long way to go until they face re-election (and may never do so - several will be retiring in 2024 or 2026). Add it up and there are quite a few where primary leverage means a lot less than for most Congressmen.
Well, you learn something new every day.
been caught drinking in the Sennedd
I would start by fixing the second, which would be easy to do if the political will were there.
6.The 20th Amendment mandates that President Trump’s term must end at noon on January 20th, but since Congress’s act on January 6, 2021 in confirming Joseph Biden as President-Elect was clearly illegitimate,and there is effectively no lawfully existing Legislative Branch this means that the Presidential Inauguration cannot lawfully go forward on Wednesday.
!!! Thankfully !!!, there is still time for the only lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official, President Donald Trump to take all reasonable and necessary action consistent with the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 1 and all the original intents and purposes of the Constitution of the United States to preserve the lawful and orderly continuity of government
7. Accordingly, this Court should
And removed the requirement to report civilian casualties.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics/melania-trump-analysis/index.html
Note that previously the FLOTUS with the lowest polling numbers at the end of her husband's last term was . . . wait for it . . . Hillary Clinton.
Hillary left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with net FLOTUS job approval of +13% (Fav 52%, Unfav 39%)
By contrast, Melania departs with net job approval of -5% (Fav 42%, Unfav 47%)
Whenever I think of the First Ladies of the United States, I always think of my mother. And what SHE thought of them, or rather the ones that were in the White House at some point in her own life.
She admired - in one way or another - ALL of the First Ladies from Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan. With her view of THEM being divorced - certainly from Mamie Eisenhower forward - from her opinion of their husbands.