Very nice piece by TLG, hope he keeps writing if he has more thoughts as cogent as this.
Thank you. I was looking through the numbers and thought the trends were interesting. I tend to be much more comfortable writing about this sort of thing, but I'll happily keep a record of these should we get any more in the not too distant future.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
Here are Labour’s general election results over the past 42 years: Lose Lose Lose Lose Blair Blair Blair Lose Lose Lose Lose
It is quite a thought that in 2024 it will be fifty years since a Labour leader other than Blair won a majority at t a general election.
In that time the Tories will have had Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson, plus May as the largest party.
and Blair
M'lud, the prosecution rests.
Of course the graphic is wrong as 2017 should say "draw"!!
No it should not. We don't have draws, and even if we did the Tories got more votes and seats so it clearly was not an equal win/loss between the two.
What matters in any case is winning power. If May had done slightly worse and Corbyn gotten into power despite fewer seats he would have won that election in the way that mattered. Worked for Jacinda Ardern.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
Scottish by elections for Westminster aren't 'results in Scottish elections at Westminster'? There are obviously nuances in the world beating British parliamentary system of which this provincial is unaware.
I am surprised you of all people are digging in on this, and going the fakey nationalist grievance route.
There was a post about 'Labour's general election' results in the last 42 years.
There was then a post in reply about 'Tories' ge results' in the last 60 years.
There was then a post about scottish elections at Westminster in reply to that.
It is pretty obvious what ydoethur meant despite omitting the word GE. He said 'Can anyone play? in reply to the first two, so was clearly responding in the same terms despite his own descriptor missing the GE label.
I'd believe this was just classic PB pedantry except you suggested it was about ignorance even though I think we can all tell what was meant.
You seem to be taking this 'game' awfully seriously, and you're not even playing. Generous of you to provide a 'what they really meant' service though.
Looking at that distribution of both where passengers were sitting overall, and who of them got COVID, it is unclear to me whether they contracted the COVID on the plane, or were rather groups of fellow-travelers, who may have contracted it from each other, either on the plane or at another point in their journey. For example why, given how empty the plane was, would the 3 in a row, or the 4 in two rows, sit so close to each other if they were not travelling together?
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
Could be famous last words, but I suspect a second Scottish Independence referendum will settle the matter one way or the other...for a generation at least.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
Could be famous last words, but I suspect a second Scottish Independence referendum will settle the matter one way or the other...for a generation at least.
I didn't know that the definition of a generation had shrunk to six nanoseconds, but hey-ho.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
Scottish by elections for Westminster aren't 'results in Scottish elections at Westminster'? There are obviously nuances in the world beating British parliamentary system of which this provincial is unaware.
I am surprised you of all people are digging in on this, and going the fakey nationalist grievance route.
There was a post about 'Labour's general election' results in the last 42 years.
There was then a post in reply about 'Tories' ge results' in the last 60 years.
There was then a post about scottish elections at Westminster in reply to that.
It is pretty obvious what ydoethur meant despite omitting the word GE. He said 'Can anyone play? in reply to the first two, so was clearly responding in the same terms despite his own descriptor missing the GE label.
I'd believe this was just classic PB pedantry except you suggested it was about ignorance even though I think we can all tell what was meant.
You seem to be taking this 'game' awfully seriously, and you're not even playing. Generous of you to provide a 'what they really meant' service though.
I'm taking it seriously whilst you making repeated comments about it is not taking it seriously? Must be one of those irregular verb situations. I'm just having fun, he's taking it seriously etc.
I'm all for intentionally misunderstanding an unclear point for amusement, but it wasn't particularly unclear so I don't know what you gain by pretending to be hard of understanding and labelling in some self pitying thing about being a provincial as if that had come up in the slighest.
I will have to remember the rule not to speculate on what someone else meant though, that's a new one to me, apparently it's a service which people should charge for. I'm certainly sure no one has ever done that before.
In case anyone is interested, Swale, the birthplace of Kent Covid, has gone from purple to blue in the Government's interactive map of death, meaning fewer than 400 cases per 100,000 in the district and only just over the national average. That's mildly encouraging IMHO..
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Trombone is also a very Brexity instrument. It screams 'red wall' - distinct whiff of collieries, whippets and people who say 'gradely' about it. I would suggest being more discriminating about the instruments and potentially the languages too.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
Looking at that distribution of both where passengers were sitting overall, and who of them got COVID, it is unclear to me whether they contracted the COVID on the plane, or were rather groups of fellow-travelers, who may have contracted it from each other, either on the plane or at another point in their journey. For example why, given how empty the plane was, would the 3 in a row, or the 4 in two rows, sit so close to each other if they were not travelling together?
The flight was from the Middle East and the pax had spent varying amounts of time in the transit airport.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Careful, you'll have theuniondivvie on your case for providing a 'what they really meant' service for YBarddCwsc, which is apparently a thing, who must speak for himself. Not that he takes things seriously.
FFS...I have just seen images of some people I vaguely know who flew to the middle East for the principle reason of watching the UFC fight last night.
Lock them up.
In the cage with the fighters....
If it is any comfort, I mentioned a few weeks ago that a couple I know decided to take a foreign holiday, well now they are stuck overseas, due to them testing positive.
Apparently they will be broke shortly, because they are having to spend lots of money paying for accommodation, and neither can work.
They aren't getting much sympathy in the WhatsApp groups.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
Probably not all that many. AIUI available evidence suggests old people are especially keen on the jab.
We must certainly hope so anyway. If we all end up under bloody lockdown again next Winter because the unvaccinated clog up the hospitals then there will be ructions.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
If they get this post Brexit Sindy2 - which they should and surely will - and AGAIN vote No there will not be another one in anything but deep time. So one way or another we are approaching a settlement.
The big decision voters in England will make at the next election is whether they want to get rid of the Tory government. If they do, they will start looking more closely at their own constituencies to find the way to do so. That will certainly help the LibDems.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Trombone is also a very Brexity instrument. It screams 'red wall' - distinct whiff of collieries, whippets and people who say 'gradely' about it. I would suggest being more discriminating about the instruments and potentially the languages too.
I used to play the Trombone, there's something in this theory.
Though even people who cannot play the Piano can play When the Saints on one. We learned in on the glockenspiel at school as it only required five notes, right next to one another.
That website is a bit rubbish, just typed in Theresa May, the Home Secretary who legislated for same sex marriage and comes out as 'Theresa voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
With the rumour about cockney Covid being more deadly - couldn't it just be different? In the sense that hospitals have got a fair bit better at treating standard Covid, but with cockney Covid they are starting from scratch. That would account for a small but noticeable increase in mortality.
Just catching up, and I can report that I've read the best, the worst, and the most mediocre of PB this afternoon.
The best: TLG's interesting header and consequent debate.
The worst: Endless comment on a pointless journalist's dissection of a pointless photo (though TSE's addition of the Bernie Sanders one was amusing).
The most mediocre: Repetitive and speculative comment on Scottish independence (by the way, was 2014 a once in a generation referendum? Remind us, HYUFD).
Incidentally, the header reminded me that I won a bet on Labour winning Canterbury in 2017 - £40@25/1. The bet was based on an idle, time-serving Tory MP, significant growth in student numbers, and a report on Emily Thornberry wandering down the High Street being greeted by enthusiastic crowds (honestly) a few days before the election.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
Here are Labour’s general election results over the past 42 years: Lose Lose Lose Lose Blair Blair Blair Lose Lose Lose Lose
It is quite a thought that in 2024 it will be fifty years since a Labour leader other than Blair won a majority at t a general election.
In that time the Tories will have had Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson, plus May as the largest party.
and Blair
M'lud, the prosecution rests.
Of course the graphic is wrong as 2017 should say "draw"!!
No it should not. We don't have draws, and even if we did the Tories got more votes and seats so it clearly was not an equal win/loss between the two.
What matters in any case is winning power. If May had done slightly worse and Corbyn gotten into power despite fewer seats he would have won that election in the way that mattered. Worked for Jacinda Ardern.
February 74 was a Labour win, because they got power despite a quarter of a million less votes.
Here are Labour’s general election results over the past 42 years: Lose Lose Lose Lose Blair Blair Blair Lose Lose Lose Lose
It is quite a thought that in 2024 it will be fifty years since a Labour leader other than Blair won a majority at t a general election.
In that time the Tories will have had Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson, plus May as the largest party.
and Blair
M'lud, the prosecution rests.
Of course the graphic is wrong as 2017 should say "draw"!!
No it should not. We don't have draws, and even if we did the Tories got more votes and seats so it clearly was not an equal win/loss between the two.
What matters in any case is winning power. If May had done slightly worse and Corbyn gotten into power despite fewer seats he would have won that election in the way that mattered. Worked for Jacinda Ardern.
17 was a loss that felt more of a win than many a win.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
The American obsession with 'roots' is deeply weird.
That website is a bit rubbish, just typed in Theresa May, the Home Secretary who legislated for same sex marriage and comes out as 'Theresa voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
Damn, I hope the academics behind this rigorously researched resource figure out what went wrong with their data and algorithms.
My MP gets a solitary positive for voting to remove Hereditary Peers. Is that really a prick/non-prick issue? I can see why it would be the right decision for the purposes of such an analysis, but it doesn't seem along the same lines as 'voting against proper funding of public services' or 'voted against directly funding free school means'
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
That website is a bit rubbish, just typed in Theresa May, the Home Secretary who legislated for same sex marriage and comes out as 'Theresa voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
Damn, I hope the academics behind this rigorously researched resource figure out what went wrong with their data and algorithms.
My MP gets a solitary positive for voting to remove Hereditary Peers. Is that really a prick/non-prick issue? I can see why it would be the right decision for the purposes of such an analysis, but it doesn't seem along the same lines as 'voting against proper funding of public services' or 'voted against directly funding free school means'
These days not agreeing with me = prick (or worse).
Just catching up, and I can report that I've read the best, the worst, and the most mediocre of PB this afternoon.
The best: TLG's interesting header and consequent debate.
Incidentally, the header reminded me that I won a bet on Labour winning Canterbury in 2017 - £40@25/1. The bet was based on an idle, time-serving Tory MP, significant growth in student numbers, and a report on Emily Thornberry wandering down the High Street being greeted by enthusiastic crowds (honestly) a few days before the election.
Thank you, that's very kind. I sat in my office the day before the election (I probably should have been working...) and thought about backing Labour in Canterbury. I didn't and was gutted when it came in. Still, I won plenty on Labour in places like Wirral South (7/1!) and Enfield North (3/1).
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
The American obsession with 'roots' is deeply weird.
I've always thought it rather charming that americans are often able to be deeply patriotic about the USA, and its hodgepotch of cultures from waves of immigration and the like, and yet simultaneously very obsessed with their antecendents, to the point of steretyping themselves based on nations their ancestors may well have left hundreds of years ago.
It's true blending of identities in many ways.
Edit: Where it seems weird is the sort of thing I have admittedly only seen in TV shows where people refer to themselves as Irish or Italian for example. Presumably as shorthand for Irish-american or Italian-american, but still.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
Two different populations, just coincidence it's the same fraction.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
The American obsession with 'roots' is deeply weird.
The Wife is also a bit Welsh and supports them over Ireland in the 6N.
That website is a bit rubbish, just typed in Theresa May, the Home Secretary who legislated for same sex marriage and comes out as 'Theresa voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
Damn, I hope the academics behind this rigorously researched resource figure out what went wrong with their data and algorithms.
My MP gets a solitary positive for voting to remove Hereditary Peers. Is that really a prick/non-prick issue? I can see why it would be the right decision for the purposes of such an analysis, but it doesn't seem along the same lines as 'voting against proper funding of public services' or 'voted against directly funding free school means'
These days not agreeing with me = prick (or worse).
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
The American obsession with 'roots' is deeply weird.
I've always thought it rather charming that americans are often able to be deeply patriotic about the USA, and its hodgepotch of cultures from waves of immigration and the like, and yet simultaneously very obsessed with their antecendents, to the point of steretyping themselves based on nations their ancestors may well have left hundreds of years ago.
It's true blending of identities in many ways.
But it implicitly places America above the rest of the world, as if it's a place to which they have ascended, rather than just another country.
That website is a bit rubbish, just typed in Theresa May, the Home Secretary who legislated for same sex marriage and comes out as 'Theresa voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
Damn, I hope the academics behind this rigorously researched resource figure out what went wrong with their data and algorithms.
My MP gets a solitary positive for voting to remove Hereditary Peers. Is that really a prick/non-prick issue? I can see why it would be the right decision for the purposes of such an analysis, but it doesn't seem along the same lines as 'voting against proper funding of public services' or 'voted against directly funding free school means'
These days not agreeing with me = prick (or worse).
I don't agree with that, you prick!
Things like this are a symptom of the dysfunctional politics. Rather than debate the points, it's easier to just call an MP a prick.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Re: English descent, of course Biden has (apparently) more English DNA (though not sure that's right way to put it) than Irish.
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
My wife is an Irish-American. My mother is, culturally, as English as they come - almost a stereotype. My mother got into genealogy and also did one of those 23andMe DNA tests - both of which suggest that my mother is genetically more Irish than my mother-in-law. That caused a cognative dissonance in my Wife's family that you would not believe. It actually caused a slight argument over Thanksgiving dinner.
The American obsession with 'roots' is deeply weird.
I've always thought it rather charming that americans are often able to be deeply patriotic about the USA, and its hodgepotch of cultures from waves of immigration and the like, and yet simultaneously very obsessed with their antecendents, to the point of steretyping themselves based on nations their ancestors may well have left hundreds of years ago.
It's true blending of identities in many ways.
But it implicitly places America above the rest of the world, as if it's a place to which they have ascended, rather than just another country.
Well that's the whole point of the American national myth isn't it?
The new world. The land of the free, the home of the brave. The home of liberty and justice. The greatest country in the world etc etc.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Trombone is also a very Brexity instrument. It screams 'red wall' - distinct whiff of collieries, whippets and people who say 'gradely' about it. I would suggest being more discriminating about the instruments and potentially the languages too.
100k deaths coming on Tuesday reporting it seems. Yikes.
Among micro nations Gibraltar appear to be having a terrible time, seemingly not having had a previous first wave. But at least their vaccinations is going well I think.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
If they get this post Brexit Sindy2 - which they should and surely will - and AGAIN vote No there will not be another one in anything but deep time. So one way or another we are approaching a settlement.
Well, maybe - if, by "deep time," you mean "the following Scottish Parliament election, when they vote the SNP back in and the whole cycle begins yet again."
Mr. T, the answer to your first question is that he doesn't understand how mirrors work. That's quite high on the thicky-o-meter.
The answer to your second may be that God moves in mysterious ways. And has a perverse sense of humour.
He clearly does not recognize when he is making a fool of himself in the presence of a far better-informed authority, and hence when it is time to shut up, listen and learn. That is the first rule of bullshitting, so he's not even good at that.
Yes.
It reminds me of a manager I worked for. A lawyer by training, he assumed that everything could be reduced to legal principles. Also that he was a philosopher king.
When introduced to new concepts he would often get the wrong end of the stick. And hold onto it with a grip like death.
He tried to run a campaign to stamp out time-wasting by developers. Said time wasting was writing unit tests* for code. Since the tests didn't go into production, they were obviously not needed. Hence a waste of time.
Please send me his details so I can be sure never to hire him.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
Two different populations, just coincidence it's the same fraction.
That is not the point I was making. Why say 75% and 3/4 in the same sentence for 2 different things. Use either 75% or 3/4 for both. It was written in such a way as to imply they were different numbers. It looked very odd.
Either use 75% or 3/4 for each stat. It was written in such a way as if the person didn't understand they were the same number.
Just catching up, and I can report that I've read the best, the worst, and the most mediocre of PB this afternoon.
The best: TLG's interesting header and consequent debate.
Incidentally, the header reminded me that I won a bet on Labour winning Canterbury in 2017 - £40@25/1. The bet was based on an idle, time-serving Tory MP, significant growth in student numbers, and a report on Emily Thornberry wandering down the High Street being greeted by enthusiastic crowds (honestly) a few days before the election.
Thank you, that's very kind. I sat in my office the day before the election (I probably should have been working...) and thought about backing Labour in Canterbury. I didn't and was gutted when it came in. Still, I won plenty on Labour in places like Wirral South (7/1!) and Enfield North (3/1).
Good stuff. My other big winner was Ipswich, which I think was 16/1. I also won lots on Labour wins in seats that I was really confident about, but which the bookies had as roughly evens (Brighton Kemptown, Hove, Batley and Spen (Jo Cox's old seat).
Looking at that distribution of both where passengers were sitting overall, and who of them got COVID, it is unclear to me whether they contracted the COVID on the plane, or were rather groups of fellow-travelers, who may have contracted it from each other, either on the plane or at another point in their journey. For example why, given how empty the plane was, would the 3 in a row, or the 4 in two rows, sit so close to each other if they were not travelling together?
That's also an extraordinary proportion of passengers who got onto the plane already infected with CV19 - which will also play a role.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
Two different populations, just coincidence it's the same fraction.
That is not the point I was making. Why say 75% and 3/4 in the same sentence for 2 different things. Use either 75% or 3/4 for both. It was written in such a way as to imply they were different numbers. It looked very odd.
Either use 75% or 3/4 for each stat. It was written in such a way as if the person didn't understand they were the same number.
To avoid repetition I would have thought. The fact they are the same is not really relevant though, so it doesn't matter whether someone understood they were the same or not.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
If they get this post Brexit Sindy2 - which they should and surely will - and AGAIN vote No there will not be another one in anything but deep time. So one way or another we are approaching a settlement.
Well, maybe - if, by "deep time," you mean "the following Scottish Parliament election, when they vote the SNP back in and the whole cycle begins yet again."
No I'm specifically saying not that. If they vote No again that will be it. And the Scottish people will know this. I think you're being too weary waspish on this one.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
Two different populations, just coincidence it's the same fraction.
That is not the point I was making. Why say 75% and 3/4 in the same sentence for 2 different things. Use either 75% or 3/4 for both. It was written in such a way as to imply they were different numbers. It looked very odd.
Either use 75% or 3/4 for each stat. It was written in such a way as if the person didn't understand they were the same number.
To avoid repetition I would have thought. The fact they are the same is not really relevant though, so it doesn't matter whether someone understood they were the same or not.
Your more charitable than me. I assumed it was written by someone who didn't pass their GCSE maths.
The only time I would find it possibly acceptable to mix them up would be with the use of 1/3 and 2/3.
The fact that each stat was identical made it really stand out.
On topic, the MRP forecasts all seem to assume a large amount of reversion to the national share. So, parties lose votes when their share is above the national average (often by large amounts), and conversely gain share when below.
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
I think it is because journalists consider saying the same thing in two succesive sentences is boring English. So most journalists won't say 75% of ... and 75% of.... even though it is the more consistent way to expressi it.
Mr. T, the answer to your first question is that he doesn't understand how mirrors work. That's quite high on the thicky-o-meter.
The answer to your second may be that God moves in mysterious ways. And has a perverse sense of humour.
He clearly does not recognize when he is making a fool of himself in the presence of a far better-informed authority, and hence when it is time to shut up, listen and learn. That is the first rule of bullshitting, so he's not even good at that.
Yes.
It reminds me of a manager I worked for. A lawyer by training, he assumed that everything could be reduced to legal principles. Also that he was a philosopher king.
When introduced to new concepts he would often get the wrong end of the stick. And hold onto it with a grip like death.
He tried to run a campaign to stamp out time-wasting by developers. Said time wasting was writing unit tests* for code. Since the tests didn't go into production, they were obviously not needed. Hence a waste of time.
Please send me his details so I can be sure never to hire him.
LOL - long retired by now. The oil company we worked for, as part of a modernisation drive, realised that their fully funded final salary pension fund was massively in surplus.
Since withdrawing money was out of the question, they offered early retirement to a large number of 60 years olds - retire now. We will give you your pension as of 65, even give you the promotions and pay rises we can assume you would have had. Plus a bonus. Plus an offer to come and consult a couple of days a week to pass on knowledge about your old job.
Practically 100% take-up. Then they did this for the 55 year olds....
A brilliant way to get rid of an enormous amount of dead wood.
There has been further developments on the issue of local elections in May. The LGIU has carried out a survey suggesting local authorities are overwhelmingly against holding them then but would prefer to defer to September. Meanwhile Cloe Smith, the Cabinet Officer minister responsible, has sent out a letter with advice about campaigning. It appears to suggest that party activists should not deliver leaflets but should use delivery firms. What difference this would make I have no idea except it what advantage local parties with the necessary funds. There is also an implicit idea that existing councillors can send out material but not challengers ( on the grounds that existing councillors are informing their voters. Expect quite a reaction - it has already started.
I'm not surprised LAs would be against them, it's just not that urgent for most of them, and delaying to September is far more convenient in terms of stopping then restarting preparations than delaying to July. I do continue to maintain party activists vastly overestimate the general importance of their campaigning, based on the occasions when it has indeed made a big difference, as most people still don't get canvassed or receive more than one leaflet (though where people do bother to work harder, it can matter, given the low turnout in most races). Certainly it would be unfair for incumbents to get any sort of advantage.
I'm still expecting a last minute deferral, maybe in late December, but the government have already held firmer than I thought they would.
It means that a volunteer can't deliver a leaflet attacking Mr Johnson, however a party that can afford to pay for a delivery company to do it would be able to deliver Mr Johnson's propaganda.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Which leads one to wonder for how many decades the whole tedious pantomime might drag on for.
If they get this post Brexit Sindy2 - which they should and surely will - and AGAIN vote No there will not be another one in anything but deep time. So one way or another we are approaching a settlement.
Well, maybe - if, by "deep time," you mean "the following Scottish Parliament election, when they vote the SNP back in and the whole cycle begins yet again."
No I'm specifically saying not that. If they vote No again that will be it. And the Scottish people will know this. I think you're being too weary waspish on this one.
Not really. If an excuse can be found for one re-run (considerably less than a generation later,) then it can be done repeatedly until the desired result is achieved.
On topic, the MRP forecasts all seem to assume a large amount of reversion to the national share. So, parties lose votes when their share is above the national average (often by large amounts), and conversely gain share when below.
I'm not sure how realistic that is.
And that wasn't the case for either YouGov or Focal Data in the models they published ahead of the 2019 GE. So the question is, what's different now? Is it that the country is less polarized, or is it just mid-term and people aren't thinking too hard about politics?
The government saying 75% of over 80s have had at least first jab. I wonder how many of the 25% haven't because they turned it down?
I noted that the BBC were reporting that Matt Hancock said 75% of over 80s had had vaccine and that three quarters of care home residents had had the vaccine. I don't know if this is Matt Hancock or the BBC that have expressed this like this, but it gave me the impression that someone didn't understand that 3/4 = 75%.
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
Two different populations, just coincidence it's the same fraction.
That is not the point I was making. Why say 75% and 3/4 in the same sentence for 2 different things. Use either 75% or 3/4 for both. It was written in such a way as to imply they were different numbers. It looked very odd.
Either use 75% or 3/4 for each stat. It was written in such a way as if the person didn't understand they were the same number.
To avoid repetition I would have thought. The fact they are the same is not really relevant though, so it doesn't matter whether someone understood they were the same or not.
Your more charitable than me. I assumed it was written by someone who didn't pass their GCSE maths.
The only time I would find it possibly acceptable to mix them up would be with the use of 1/3 and 2/3.
The fact that each stat was identical made it really stand out.
Written by someone who struggled with his O level English. Good job @MarqueeMark isn't here.
With the rumour about cockney Covid being more deadly - couldn't it just be different? In the sense that hospitals have got a fair bit better at treating standard Covid, but with cockney Covid they are starting from scratch. That would account for a small but noticeable increase in mortality.
It may well be more deadly but cases in Kent, where it started, have been dropping very quickly lately so maybe it doesn't like to hang about.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
That sounds to me like he doesn't play in the sense that me and YBarddCwsc are meaning. Touch of the house of the rising suns about it. Borderline at best.
Careful, you'll have theuniondivvie on your case for providing a 'what they really meant' service for YBarddCwsc, which is apparently a thing, who must speak for himself. Not that he takes things seriously.
You obviously had a right good exfoliation first thing this morning.
It would appear that Liverpool have decided to wear Man City fancy dress this afternoon. Whether this does anything to improve their form remains to be seen.
Comments
What matters in any case is winning power. If May had done slightly worse and Corbyn gotten into power despite fewer seats he would have won that election in the way that mattered. Worked for Jacinda Ardern.
610 new deaths
493k jabbies
I'm all for intentionally misunderstanding an unclear point for amusement, but it wasn't particularly unclear so I don't know what you gain by pretending to be hard of understanding and labelling in some self pitying thing about being a provincial as if that had come up in the slighest.
I will have to remember the rule not to speculate on what someone else meant though, that's a new one to me, apparently it's a service which people should charge for. I'm certainly sure no one has ever done that before.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1353369583617507329?s=20
Perhaps it would help IF Joe admitted that he used to smoke Marlboro(ugh) cigaret(te)s?
Probably not - because then he'd be accused of insulting the Churchill family AND rampant Anglophobia for quitting them!
Apparently they will be broke shortly, because they are having to spend lots of money paying for accommodation, and neither can work.
They aren't getting much sympathy in the WhatsApp groups.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1353342576351465473?s=20
We must certainly hope so anyway. If we all end up under bloody lockdown again next Winter because the unvaccinated clog up the hospitals then there will be ructions.
Though even people who cannot play the Piano can play When the Saints on one. We learned in on the glockenspiel at school as it only required five notes, right next to one another.
https://twitter.com/5472_nde/status/1353375769100222464
Tony Blair ~ Tory in Lab
PM Tony Blair ~ I'm Tory Plan B
The best: TLG's interesting header and consequent debate.
The worst: Endless comment on a pointless journalist's dissection of a pointless photo (though TSE's addition of the Bernie Sanders one was amusing).
The most mediocre: Repetitive and speculative comment on Scottish independence (by the way, was 2014 a once in a generation referendum? Remind us, HYUFD).
Incidentally, the header reminded me that I won a bet on Labour winning Canterbury in 2017 - £40@25/1. The bet was based on an idle, time-serving Tory MP, significant growth in student numbers, and a report on Emily Thornberry wandering down the High Street being greeted by enthusiastic crowds (honestly) a few days before the election.
I wish I had his stamina.
My MP gets a solitary positive for voting to remove Hereditary Peers. Is that really a prick/non-prick issue? I can see why it would be the right decision for the purposes of such an analysis, but it doesn't seem along the same lines as 'voting against proper funding of public services' or 'voted against directly funding free school means'
And what is not surprising is that was my first assumption when seeing something written like that. Is it very cynical of me to assume when seeing something like this that these people don't understand very basic arithmetic rather than it being an inconsistency.
It's true blending of identities in many ways.
Edit: Where it seems weird is the sort of thing I have admittedly only seen in TV shows where people refer to themselves as Irish or Italian for example. Presumably as shorthand for Irish-american or Italian-american, but still.
Where's isam?
The new world. The land of the free, the home of the brave. The home of liberty and justice. The greatest country in the world etc etc.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
Among micro nations Gibraltar appear to be having a terrible time, seemingly not having had a previous first wave. But at least their vaccinations is going well I think.
Either use 75% or 3/4 for each stat. It was written in such a way as if the person didn't understand they were the same number.
The only time I would find it possibly acceptable to mix them up would be with the use of 1/3 and 2/3.
The fact that each stat was identical made it really stand out.
https://twitter.com/jensjesv/status/1353377918274166784?s=19
And this isn't because they government isn't vaccinating anybody...it is because they imposed a lockdown.
I'm not sure how realistic that is.
It doesn't look very different.
Since withdrawing money was out of the question, they offered early retirement to a large number of 60 years olds - retire now. We will give you your pension as of 65, even give you the promotions and pay rises we can assume you would have had. Plus a bonus. Plus an offer to come and consult a couple of days a week to pass on knowledge about your old job.
Practically 100% take-up. Then they did this for the 55 year olds....
A brilliant way to get rid of an enormous amount of dead wood.
Your or You're. Will we doing 100 lines of this.
One benefit of Indy - at least they can be held to account for it