Raab puts the pathetic in apathetic, which might save him – politicalbetting.com

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

Mogadon man managed to put the issue to sleep.

Is he any more useless, lazy or incompetent than any other minister though?

Yes.

As has been pointed out the list of things Dominic Raab has failed to see coming includes ‘1. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan; 2. The importance of the Good Friday Agreement and its fragility post Brexit; 3. The importance of the UK’s proximity to Calais re imports/exports of goods‘, things he was specifically warned about.

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

kinabalu said:

RochdalePioneers said:

kinabalu said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

Nothing has changed that opinion.

Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.

Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.

Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.

You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

I would be interested in your reply

I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.

Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence

Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.

So will you refuse indyref2

No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.

Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top

Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.

If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.

I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?

I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.

Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.

I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.

This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary

How many times do we have to do this?
1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.

As many times as you need to understand

The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland

I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one

No, it’s a totally different thing.

The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong

I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?

Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.

So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.

MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.

Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?

Sure.

But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.

This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”

50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.

FPT

- a majority of seats at Westminster
- ditto Holyrood
- a majority of the vote at the latter

All for an independence referendum (not even demanding actual independence)

The more you come out with stuff like that, the more you delegitimise the standing of your own party.

Foxy said:

Incidentally, great Fast Show clip.

rpjs said:

FPT:

contrarian said:

I am a bloke to save you the bother.

I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

kinabalu said:

RochdalePioneers said:

kinabalu said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

Nothing has changed that opinion.

Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.

Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.

Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.

You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

I would be interested in your reply

I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.

Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence

Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.

So will you refuse indyref2

No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.

Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top

Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.

If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.

I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?

I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.

Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.

I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.

This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary

How many times do we have to do this?
1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.

As many times as you need to understand

The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland

I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one

No, it’s a totally different thing.

The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong

I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?

Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.

So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.

MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.

Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?

Sure.

But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.

This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”

50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.

FPT

- a majority of seats at Westminster
- ditto Holyrood
- a majority of the vote at the latter

All for an independence referendum (not even demanding actual independence)

The more you come out with stuff like that, the more you delegitimise the standing of your own party.

It does not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% of the vote and seats at Holyrood, the future of the union is a matter reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998.

This government has made clear it will not grant indyref2 before the next general election and polling shows most Scots do not want an independence referendum before the next general election and until 2026 anyway

kinabalu said:

This all seems like a charade to me. Raab, his questioners, the media take on it, the whole thing.

Benpointer said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

contrarian said:

I am a bloke to save you the bother.

I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?

The Franklin quote is not of course "Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither" as @contrarian puts it but:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

The difference in emphasis is very important.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Don't worry everyone.
The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.

I can see through your smoke and mirrors.

No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.

Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?

No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.

Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.

No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

Its not paying off the mortage.

That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Don't worry everyone.
The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.

I can see through your smoke and mirrors.

No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.

Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?

No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.

Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.

No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

Its not paying off the mortage.

That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.

That is cobblers! The 2008 and ever since, Conservative narrative has been the unaffordability of the DEBT. and the implicit growth of the debt through shortfalls in the deficit. Osborne's austerity narrative was to gradually repay the "credit card" debt down by reducing the deficit. The point was that not only did we need to pay the monthly minimum payment, but we needed room to pay a bit of the debt down each month too. It was a bollocks argument, but voters loved it and understood the maths behind it. Because Boris Big Balls has racked up an eye watering debt (and you would say it's not really a debt anyway we are just printing new money) you are now saying "the DEBT doesn't matter any more, we have no intention of paying it anyway, we just need to keep up with the minimum monthly payments".

If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.

tlg86 said:

Alistair said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.

That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.

My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

And also why Putin is so keen on it and Salmond has a talk show on Russia Today

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

Alistair said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.

That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.

My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.

I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

As a PBer has commented, I forget who, that's as much use as an Epping councillor wanting to vote in a Holyrood election, as it is a very unusual woman who knows she is pregnant that soon.

It is still technically not an attempt to ban abortion outright contrary to Roe v Wade

rcs1000 said:

dixiedean said:

FPT. Thanks to @MrEd for the Madchester clip from the US. Been looking for it for some time to show youngest, who has just got into Smiths, Joy Division et al.
Predictable response though...
Seen it.

Remember The Lesson of the Smiths.

Benpointer said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

contrarian said:

I am a bloke to save you the bother.

I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.

Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.

I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.

Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.

Would you have opposed the blackout if you'd lived during the Blitz?

Would you oppose hard lockdowns / quarantines in the event of an extremely contagious and extremely deadly pandemic? (Let's say something with the impact of the Black Death of the 14th century.)

If no to the above, at what sort of CFR would you accept that extreme lockdown is necessary? 50% 30% 5% ?

Do you think anyone should own any kind of weapon, including WMDs?

All those things are deprivations of individual liberty for the general safety. Which ones would you accept?

The Franklin quote is not of course "Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither" as @contrarian puts it but:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

The difference in emphasis is very important.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

MattW said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.

Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.

Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...

Not necessariuly. Ask the Swiss, Swedes and Finns.

darkage said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

Alistair said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.

That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.

My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.

I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.

I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

MattW said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.

Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.

After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction

kinabalu said:

darkage said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

Alistair said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.

That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.

My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.

I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.

I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

Half an hour in a sauna with a lunatic? Rather you than me. God.

BigRich said:

darkage said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

Alistair said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

There’s also the issue of public finances. They’ll take care of themselves if the government doesn’t do so in an orderly fashion.

Zero chance of another lockdown. Zero chance of contrarian being proved right on the tiniest detail of anything to do with Covid. He wouldn't know what to do if he were to be right about something. The shock would probably kill him.

That's a hostage to fortune. If Covid mutated into the Omega variant with a 10% CFR, beats current vaccine protection but a small vaccine tweak gives 100% protection I'd definetely take evens that we would have a full fat lockdown.

But the fact that we did have another lockdown would show that contrarian was wrong given he didn't think pubs would be open right now.

My comment relates specifically to the current virus. Yes, what you describe would be a game changer, but I’m talking about the next six months or so.

Also, I think vaxports are wrong full stop, but I would be even more appalled if antivaxxers like @Dura_Ace are given a free pass on the basis of beliefs.

I also think there's almost zero chance of legally mandated vaxports in this country. It's rhetoric to encourage vaccination.

I just spent 30 minutes talking to an anti vaxxer in our municipal sauna. She won't get the vaccine, because she is terrified of vaccine passports. This seems to have led her in to the world of conspiracy theories; ie that the vaccine and vaccine passports are part of a new totalitarian world order.

The policy of threatening vaccine passports may have nudged some people in to getting the vaccine, but it has also done a lot of harm, as it is hardening opposition by a committed minority.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

What you experienced is not a one off,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

Vaccine passports are a bad idea anyway, but backing people in to a corner, and marginalising them is more likely to reduce the number who get vaccinated

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.

After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction

No shit, Sherlock?

It now has at least a 5-4 conservative majority I would say, so I think the Texas law could be upheld even if the SC heard the case

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.

After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction

Trump stole SCOTUS for goodness sake. He didn't apply the rule he claimed in Obama's final year nomination (Garland?) to Coney- Barratt. Don't defend the indefensible!

rottenborough said:

Scots Liberals against vaxports. Hurrah! At last the party is standing up for something.

https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566

BigRich said:

rottenborough said:

Scots Liberals against vaxports. Hurrah! At last the party is standing up for something.

https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1433166649729986566

do we know how the other party's are leaning on this, I'm guessing Lap are pro, con and green don't know

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

What's all this about states' rights? I thought that the whole point of Roe v Wade was that abortion rights were established as applicable, at the federal level and throughout the Union, and not subject to veto by the states? So, frankly, who cares whether or not Texas has a "pro-life" legislature? You'll be arguing that it has the right to call a referendum on independence next...

The Texan measures constitute an effective total ban. A large proportion of pregnant women aren't even aware of their status in time to take advantage of the six week limit, and in any event the law has declared open season for vexatious law suits by private citizens against abortion practitioners. They'll all be compelled to shut up shop.

We know where this will end: the way it always does, and the way it always did in the past. Almost no foetuses will be spared by this law, whilst a substantial number of women and girls will suffer and die unnecessarily. It'll just mean abortion tourism to neighbouring jurisdictions for the rich, and desperate acts with kebab skewers and other such implements for the poor. The legislation is so restrictive that it doesn't even contain exemptions for pregnancies started by sexual violence. It effectively defends men's right to procreate by rape.

It's all more than a little Taliban, just done in the name of a different deity.

Theuniondivvie said:

A plan! Mind you, who the feck is expecting the English to be nice?

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Don't worry everyone.
The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances
National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt
National debt of 100% and rising is affordable

Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard

National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.

Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.

I can see through your smoke and mirrors.

No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.

Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.

Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.

Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?

No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.

Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.

He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.

Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.

No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).

Its not paying off the mortage.

That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.

That is cobblers! The 2008 and ever since, Conservative narrative has been the unaffordability of the DEBT. and the implicit growth of the debt through shortfalls in the deficit. Osborne's austerity narrative was to gradually repay the "credit card" debt down by reducing the deficit. The point was that not only did we need to pay the monthly minimum payment, but we needed room to pay a bit of the debt down each month too. It was a bollocks argument, but voters loved it and understood the maths behind it. Because Boris Big Balls has racked up an eye watering debt (and you would say it's not really a debt anyway we are just printing new money) you are now saying "the DEBT doesn't matter any more, we have no intention of paying it anyway, we just need to keep up with the minimum monthly payments".

If that isn't changing the narrative, I don't know what is.

That's complete and utter cobblers. We were never going to pay off the debt. By 2015 the UK debt was £1.5 trillion - Osborne never had any intention of running a budget surplus of £1.5 trillion to pay off the debt.

Osborne never sought to repay the debt, he sought to stop living off the credit card and to pay our current payments annually without a deficit, not trillions of surplus. And it wasn't a bollocks argument, it was entirely correct.

We don't need to pay the minimum monthly payments, we need to pay the full amount. Which is eliminating the deficit, eliminating the deficit is paying it off.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

People are starting to dig up the receipts for the bad Supreme Court nomination takes over the period of the Trump Presidency

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1014873346687864833?s=19

If Texas moves in a pro life direction for once given all the movement in recent decades has been pro choice that is up to Texas, it has a pro life GOP governor and legislature after all. If the SC respects states rights good for Texas and the SC.

Texas in any case has not banned abortion, just restricted it after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy

Or the two or three weeks if you are lucky after a positive pregnancy test.

More like one to two if you are lucky after a test.

Indeed many women wouldn't even take a test until six weeks.

PS plus of course SCOTUS has ruled in the past I believe that bans from six weeks are not compatible with Roe.

After the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett and after the moderate David Souter retired and was replaced by the conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the SC has moved in a more conservative direction

Trump stole SCOTUS for goodness sake. He didn't apply the rule he claimed in Obama's final year nomination (Garland?) to Coney- Barratt. Don't defend the indefensible!

There is nothing indefensible, Trump nominated conservatives when he could, Obama nominated liberals when he could