Howdy, Stranger!

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

Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited September 17

    Well now

    From The Times

    The streaming platform DAZN is stepping up efforts to buy BT Sport, therefore taking over the pay-TV channel’s rights to show Premier League and Gallagher Premiership rugby matches, according to broadcasting industry sources.

    The takeover may have to be approved by the Premier League, however. BT Sport is a major rights holder and such contracts would usually include a change of ownership clause, but it is understood that the Premier League has yet to be asked for its approval.

    DAZN’s interest is believed to be two-fold — it would give the platform access to domestic Premier League rights in the UK as it seeks to boost its position in the British market. Buying BT Sport would also give it a ready-made production centre.

    The first signs of a concerted effort by DAZN to target the UK came in July when it signed a five-year deal with the promoter Matchroom to cover boxing.

    The possible takeover has not stopped BT Sport from pursuing sports rights. It is expected to seal a deal to show England’s Ashes tour to Australia this autumn.

    DAZN’s chairman Kevin Mayer hinted at a takeover this week at the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention, replying “possibly” when asked whether it could buy BT Sport, adding that DAZN “would love to have the EPL”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazn-set-sights-on-buying-bt-sport-and-its-premier-league-rights-gv3kz9sc7

    I thought the DAZN were short of reddies? Didn't they have to sell some things in the past year or so, because they were running out of cash.
    Yes and no.

    They have spent lots, the attraction of buying BT Sport is you've already got an established customer base, you don't need to spend much on that nor spending lots of money overpaying for rights.
    Its a bloody awful name. DA ZONE Bruv....clicks fingers....very Ali G.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461

    Stocky said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/council-tax-should-be-replaced-with-annual-payment-think-tank-says/ar-AAOwJf0?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531

    If Labour come out with this 0.5% levy idea to replace council tax in their manifesto my X will be in the Labour box quicker than @HYUFD can make a u-turn on abortion policy.

    House valuation: by whom and how? Finger in the air?
    I believe the French solution is to have self declarations but the government has the right to purchase your property at a percentage above your declared value.

    So if you declare your house is worth £100k when it's really £300k the government exercises it's option to purchase based on the price you self declared.
    Is this right though? I can't find anything on it.
  • Scott_xP said:

    NEW – Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON 40% (+1)
    LAB 36% (-1)
    LD 9% (-1)
    GRN 5% (-)
    SNP 4% (-)
    OTH 5% (-)

    2164, online, UK adults aged 18+, 10-14 Sept 21. Changes w/ 23 July 21

    https://www.survation.com/political-polling-17-september-2021/ https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1438896821544362000/photo/1

    Before the reshuffle and AUKUS
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    Currently on the bus into Newcastle to watch the Toon get pumped by Leeds
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    One for Roger:

    NEW – Best Prime Minister:

    Boris Johnson. 45% (+5)
    Keir Starmer 28% (-7)
    Don't know 28% (+1)


    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1438896842989789194?s=20
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    Are non-tories allowed to gloat about Raab?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,879
    IshmaelZ said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    Are non-tories allowed to gloat about Raab?
    Preferably on mute.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I really hope there's a higher bar for defamation than that you are 'incorrectly portrayed' in a work of fiction. Feels like a waste of time for lawyers (if that's not an oxymoron).

    Georgian chess icon Nona Gaprindashvili has filed a defamation lawsuit against Netflix, saying she was incorrectly portrayed in the hit series The Queen's Gambit.

    The case refers to a sequence in the drama's final episode which says Gaprindashvili, now 80, had never played competitive chess with men.

    The document says that by 1968, the year in which the episode is set, she had faced at least 59 male players.

    Netflix said the claim had "no merit".


    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58600453

    'In the final episode, a commentator mentions Gaprindashvili when describing Harmon: "The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that's not unique in Russia. There's Nona Gaprindashvili, but she's the female world champion and has never faced men."'

    That is a statement about a real world person - not even a fictional character based in part on that person. It seems pretty clear to me. Unless there was some subtle point about the fictional commentator being wrong, on a par with some character in a novel talking about Queen Mary III banning her eldest son from Windsor Castle for having pineapple pizzas delivered. But that seems unlikely, not least because most readers wouldn't spot it.
    They got a fact wrong, who gives a crap? Is every statement about a real world person going to need to be rigorously fact checked? Does it really equal defamation to get that point wrong, without some personal attack to make it more serious?
    Yes and yes, incontrovertibly. Why do you think novels have that no resemblance to anyone alive or dead disclaimer at the front?

    And is this not serious? I'd be fucking incandescent if I were Gaprindashvili. And if you think about it it defames women, not just her.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    IshmaelZ said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    Are non-tories allowed to gloat about Raab?
    Everyone is allowed to gloat about Raab....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    Good luck @Cyclefree I really hope he gets seen to quickly
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    Do lower abortion limits appeal to the red wall? I doubt it.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,879
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
  • HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    The comments @JohnO second paragraph are clear and so true of you and something I thought had become extinct in the party
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,480

    Some really bold leaks coming from State Department. In one France was not informed because “we knew they would go ballistic.” In another France was not informed “because we thought it was no big deal.” In a third the whole idea came from Australia

    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1438894070596874244?s=20

    Blink'en you'll miss it.
  • Rishi Sunak's weekly No11 newsletter striking an especially sassy tone in its autumn return.

    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1438882552773849094?s=20

    Trying too hard?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    I’m broadly pro-choice on abortion and anti-assisted dying.

    I get the sense my position is rather unusual.

    I think my morality is strongly influenced by having a younger brother with severe disabilities and thinking through such moral issues in relation to him over a long period of time.

    I am, broadly, of the same view as you. Generally pro-choice and generally anti-assisted dying.

    It seems that a woman should have full control of her body but at the same time goodness only knows who gets to play god by deeming when a foetus is a person (with rights - the vast majority of foeti [?] would unhindered grow to become people).

    Likewise assisted dying. I get that people, say, with MND have chosen this option but the dangers of enshrining it in law to me are many and real.
    Bit of an oxymoron there Topping , Women must have control of her body for childbirth but neither women or men should have control for assisted dying. You seem to want your cake and also eat it. Piss or get off the pot.
    Malc was it a heavy hand pouring your Friday tankard of eggnog?

    It's chalk and apples.

    Abortion: woman decides over her own body and the as yet non-person
    Assisted dying: grasping children/full care homes/exasperated nurses/mass murderers aid aged parents over the top for any number of nefarious reasons.
    Too early for drink Topping we are not all Alkies, stay classy.
    Still think it is an oxymoron and obviously there would need to be safeguards , all you mention above can be done now without any issue other than they don't need to get minimum of two doctors to agree.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062

    ping said:

    I’m broadly pro-choice on abortion and anti-assisted dying.

    I get the sense my position is rather unusual.

    I think my morality is strongly influenced by having a younger brother with severe disabilities and thinking through such moral issues in relation to him over a long period of time.

    It's a view I understand, and have a great deal of sympathy for.

    It is fairly easy to point to fairly solid (IMO) cases, such as Terri Schiavo - and say her suffering should end. Or Paul Lamb (1), who was of sound mind, and wrote eloquently about why he wanted the right to die, when the time came, without having to recourse to starve himself to death. (Incidentally, I see he died in June this year. RIP.)

    But these are the 'easy' cases, and there are more difficult ones. What happens when someone is in evident pain, but is not of sound mind to make such a decision? IMV assisted dying should not apply to such a person. Yet I also believe someone should not be forced to suffer with no hope of an end to the suffering, as in the Schiavo case. Balancing these is incredibly tricky.

    But IMO this is not a reason not do anything. Assisted dying should be possible, but it should not be routine. And we should not 'farm it out' to other countries.

    (1): https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/09/if-the-courts-wont-act-parliament-must-reconsider-the-case-for-assisted-dying/
    I agree, and farming it out also reserves the option for those that can afford it.

    I'm very much pro-choice on abortion and pro assisted-dying. And society needs to de-moralise suicide as well.
  • Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    It is totally unacceptable and my love and best wishes to both of you as you go through this trauma
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,269
    @HYUFD you keep talking about the DUP as potential Conservative partners following a hung parliament, but what of the DUP's polling woes? Are you sure they'll even be the biggest Northern Irish unionist party after an election?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    edited September 17
    Farooq said:

    @HYUFD you keep talking about the DUP as potential Conservative partners following a hung parliament, but what of the DUP's polling woes? Are you sure they'll even be the biggest Northern Irish unionist party after an election?

    As I already said that is only at Stormont which is PR, most of its supporters will return to the DUP for FPTP Westminster elections.

    However even if they did not and most DUP voters and seats went TUV for Westminster too then as I also said the TUV are even more hardline on abortion and the Irish Sea than the DUP are
  • Rishi Sunak's weekly No11 newsletter striking an especially sassy tone in its autumn return.

    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1438882552773849094?s=20

    Trying too hard?

    He has real competition in Liz Truss
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    Brutal - the ONS upper estimate (they estimate a range) of COVID infection in Scotland w/e Sept 11 was nearly 3% of the population, with the lower estimate 2%:


    For Lady Haw Haw and her super biased opinion ......................

    With only 5 529 cases in the last 48 hours, the 7 day average infection level has fallen to 3 174 from a peak of 6 391 on the 7th. BBC Scotland AND CARLOTTA clearly don’t like the look of this trend and have gone for the ONS estimates for the week before last.
    If you'd bothered to read my earlier post on your spittle flecked screen you'd have noted that I commented that this was a lagging indicator and that recent cases in Scotland were well down, but hey, ho, haters gotta hate....
    Oh dear caught out yet again with your economical truths.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
  • Well now

    From The Times

    The streaming platform DAZN is stepping up efforts to buy BT Sport, therefore taking over the pay-TV channel’s rights to show Premier League and Gallagher Premiership rugby matches, according to broadcasting industry sources.

    The takeover may have to be approved by the Premier League, however. BT Sport is a major rights holder and such contracts would usually include a change of ownership clause, but it is understood that the Premier League has yet to be asked for its approval.

    DAZN’s interest is believed to be two-fold — it would give the platform access to domestic Premier League rights in the UK as it seeks to boost its position in the British market. Buying BT Sport would also give it a ready-made production centre.

    The first signs of a concerted effort by DAZN to target the UK came in July when it signed a five-year deal with the promoter Matchroom to cover boxing.

    The possible takeover has not stopped BT Sport from pursuing sports rights. It is expected to seal a deal to show England’s Ashes tour to Australia this autumn.

    DAZN’s chairman Kevin Mayer hinted at a takeover this week at the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention, replying “possibly” when asked whether it could buy BT Sport, adding that DAZN “would love to have the EPL”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazn-set-sights-on-buying-bt-sport-and-its-premier-league-rights-gv3kz9sc7

    I thought the DAZN were short of reddies? Didn't they have to sell some things in the past year or so, because they were running out of cash.
    Owned by your typical Russian oligarch billionaire. You know, links to Putin, donates to Trump, Biden, Obama, McConnell, Clinton, Harris, won the Legion d'Honneur and knighted by the Queen! Likes to spread his bets apparently. And could buy the whole of BT quite easily, let alone BT sport.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,269
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    @HYUFD you keep talking about the DUP as potential Conservative partners following a hung parliament, but what of the DUP's polling woes? Are you sure they'll even be the biggest Northern Irish unionist party after an election?

    As I already said that is only at Stormont which is PR, most of its supporters will return to the DUP for FPTP Westminster elections.

    However even if they did not and most DUP voters and seats went TUV for Westminster too then as I also said the TUV are even more hardline on abortion and the Irish Sea than the DUP are
    Ok, but will the TUV support a Conservative government? Genuine question, I know even less about Northern Ireland than you know about Scotland.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    You are right to be. Clap the NHS eh?

    My current gripe is teensy compared to yours, but paid £600 for a CT scan today because I'm not prepared to wait weeks for a scan and a year or more for the hernia operation that I already know I need. Total cost will be over £5k I think. Good use of my savings, I know, but still sticks in the craw.

    Is researching local private options worth considering in your husband's case?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Bell v Tavistock overturned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58598186

    What does that mean? I mean I know it's something to do with the Tavvy but what are the implications?
    Overturns a ruling which said you can't give under 16s puberty blockers without parental permission.
    [deleted - happily Selebian has commented learnedly.]
    That's overstating my second-hand tea room chatter (now that we're back in the office again a bit and even allowed more than two in the tea room, so we can chat).

    But thank you :smile:
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    Perhaps the answer is that we don't know, but that any government arising out of Tories getting 316 seats is unlikely to last long before fresh elections.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    UK recognising vaccination (subject to vaccine) in more countries:

    Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Dominica, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, New Zealand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea or Taiwan

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-amber-and-green-list-rules-for-entering-england#fully-vaccinated
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Miss Cyclefree, no apologies needed, you're right to be furious, and I hope that kicking up a fuss actually gets the cogs of the NHS to turn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    edited September 17
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Just look at the May elections, while Surrey and Oxfordshire saw big LD and Green gains and Khan was re elected in London, the Tories made big gains north of the Watford Gap and in strong Leave areas of Essex like Harlow and Basildon.

    The party is swinging away from the socially liberal London and the South East relatively and towards the more socially conservative Midlands and North and East Anglia
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Well now

    From The Times

    The streaming platform DAZN is stepping up efforts to buy BT Sport, therefore taking over the pay-TV channel’s rights to show Premier League and Gallagher Premiership rugby matches, according to broadcasting industry sources.

    The takeover may have to be approved by the Premier League, however. BT Sport is a major rights holder and such contracts would usually include a change of ownership clause, but it is understood that the Premier League has yet to be asked for its approval.

    DAZN’s interest is believed to be two-fold — it would give the platform access to domestic Premier League rights in the UK as it seeks to boost its position in the British market. Buying BT Sport would also give it a ready-made production centre.

    The first signs of a concerted effort by DAZN to target the UK came in July when it signed a five-year deal with the promoter Matchroom to cover boxing.

    The possible takeover has not stopped BT Sport from pursuing sports rights. It is expected to seal a deal to show England’s Ashes tour to Australia this autumn.

    DAZN’s chairman Kevin Mayer hinted at a takeover this week at the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention, replying “possibly” when asked whether it could buy BT Sport, adding that DAZN “would love to have the EPL”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazn-set-sights-on-buying-bt-sport-and-its-premier-league-rights-gv3kz9sc7

    I thought the DAZN were short of reddies? Didn't they have to sell some things in the past year or so, because they were running out of cash.
    Owned by your typical Russian oligarch billionaire. You know, links to Putin, donates to Trump, Biden, Obama, McConnell, Clinton, Harris, won the Legion d'Honneur and knighted by the Queen! Likes to spread his bets apparently. And could buy the whole of BT quite easily, let alone BT sport.
    Which Tory MP's / Minister's do they sponsor is the real question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    @HYUFD you keep talking about the DUP as potential Conservative partners following a hung parliament, but what of the DUP's polling woes? Are you sure they'll even be the biggest Northern Irish unionist party after an election?

    As I already said that is only at Stormont which is PR, most of its supporters will return to the DUP for FPTP Westminster elections.

    However even if they did not and most DUP voters and seats went TUV for Westminster too then as I also said the TUV are even more hardline on abortion and the Irish Sea than the DUP are
    Ok, but will the TUV support a Conservative government? Genuine question, I know even less about Northern Ireland than you know about Scotland.
    Only with tighter abortion laws until the Irish Sea border is removed
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461
    edited September 17

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 891
    rcs1000 said:

    So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?

    It is a shame, and it is probably an unforced error. (And is a bit ironic, given Davey worked very well as a Cabinet minister in the Coalition government.)

    Of course, that's also probably the cause of this. That background probably makes Davey a bit suspect to those on the Left of the LibDem party.
    I don't think so. The Lib Dem position, as I understand it, is that we are not seeking a formal coalition with anybody. Why should we? Outside a formal arrangement, Lib Dem MPs are free to vote for Liberal policies and to oppose those that are not.

    If the Conservative and Labour Parties want Lib Dem support, they can jolly well become more Liberal.....

    I wonder how many former Conservative supporters on PB saw Alistair Carmichael's speech to the Lib Dem Conference just now..... It was good stuff.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    A while back (I've had no luck either lately) I has a cut in a retina which is regarded as a medical emergency and needed an eye op. After waiting two days to hear anything I took the bull by the horns, despite hating conflict, and called the hospital concerned, asked why I had received no contact and explained in no uncertain terms that a retinal tear can lead to retina detachment and blindness - and the delay in these circumstances and risks is unacceptable.

    I got a call from the specialist within two hours and was in for the op later that day.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821

    ping said:

    Excellent 0.5% property tax idea by the IPPR

    Should be much higher, IMO, but if 0.5% is on the ballot, I’ll vote for it.

    We can argue to raise it once it’s been established.

    Personally I’d go 5% and make it revenue neutral, taking it off income tax. Perhaps bollox a load of other stupid transaction taxes at the same time. Id get less angry about IHT, too, if we had a reasonable level of property tax. Id happily compromise with raising the IHT threshold.

    Not a bad idea.

    But you'd also need to ensure the owner is liable not tenants.

    Perhaps we could do the trick used for NI were wages are taxed on both sides. Say start with 0.5% of full price for the owner of the property and a further 0.5% of full price for the owner of the freehold. In the event that someone owns both then they pay both but we say until blue in the face it's only 0.5%.

    Then the Treasury could increase the tax by 0.5 - which is really 0.5% on both.
    Wasnt the whole point of replacing Rates with Council Tax to make sure residents paid, not owners? So renters wouldn't vote for profligate Labour councils without having to worry about paying their share of the bill.
  • malcolmg said:

    Well now

    From The Times

    The streaming platform DAZN is stepping up efforts to buy BT Sport, therefore taking over the pay-TV channel’s rights to show Premier League and Gallagher Premiership rugby matches, according to broadcasting industry sources.

    The takeover may have to be approved by the Premier League, however. BT Sport is a major rights holder and such contracts would usually include a change of ownership clause, but it is understood that the Premier League has yet to be asked for its approval.

    DAZN’s interest is believed to be two-fold — it would give the platform access to domestic Premier League rights in the UK as it seeks to boost its position in the British market. Buying BT Sport would also give it a ready-made production centre.

    The first signs of a concerted effort by DAZN to target the UK came in July when it signed a five-year deal with the promoter Matchroom to cover boxing.

    The possible takeover has not stopped BT Sport from pursuing sports rights. It is expected to seal a deal to show England’s Ashes tour to Australia this autumn.

    DAZN’s chairman Kevin Mayer hinted at a takeover this week at the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention, replying “possibly” when asked whether it could buy BT Sport, adding that DAZN “would love to have the EPL”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazn-set-sights-on-buying-bt-sport-and-its-premier-league-rights-gv3kz9sc7

    I thought the DAZN were short of reddies? Didn't they have to sell some things in the past year or so, because they were running out of cash.
    Owned by your typical Russian oligarch billionaire. You know, links to Putin, donates to Trump, Biden, Obama, McConnell, Clinton, Harris, won the Legion d'Honneur and knighted by the Queen! Likes to spread his bets apparently. And could buy the whole of BT quite easily, let alone BT sport.
    Which Tory MP's / Minister's do they sponsor is the real question.
    Certainly his firm donates to the Tory party

    http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/?currentPage=1&rows=30&query=access industries&sort=AcceptedDate&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&et=ppm&et=tp&et=perpar&et=rd&isIrishSourceYes=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&prePoll=false&postPoll=true&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&optCols=Register&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=AccountingUnitsAsCentralParty&optCols=IsSponsorship&optCols=IsIrishSource&optCols=RegulatedDoneeType&optCols=CompanyRegistrationNumber&optCols=Postcode&optCols=NatureOfDonation&optCols=PurposeOfVisit&optCols=DonationAction&optCols=ReportedDate&optCols=IsReportedPrePoll&optCols=ReportingPeriodName&optCols=IsBequest&optCols=IsAggregation
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
    You seem to think that there are two options: Conservative led government or Labour led one.

    That's not true.

    If the Conservatives were unwilling to make sufficient concessions to the DUP, the consequence would be another General Election, not a Starmer-led government.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    However, a Parliament where the government is 316 Conservatives + 8 DUP would make 2017-19 look like an oasis of strength, stability and calm. Bozza would presumably be out (jumped, pushed, combination... doesn't matter) in time for Terce on Friday. And as we saw in 2010 (and to an extent in 2017), the tide runs quite rapidly against a government that tries to cling on after losing a majority. For better or worse, there's a strong "don't let the door slam on your bum as you leave" strand in British political instincts.

    But the ensuing Parliament... You'd have to wonder why the gods had taken against the UK so.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Late afternoon all :)

    First, best wishes to @Cyclefree and her husband and I just hope and pray they get some resolution to this crisis very soon.

    On topic, this is a sterile argument because so much will depend on how the numbers stack up. In 2010, the Conservatives won 306 seats, Labour 258 and the LDs 57. Labour plus the LDs on 315 were just in front of the Conservatives plus DUP on 314. With the five SF MPs not sitting, that meant 645 MPs and 323 for a majority so the Lab-LD partnership so even if the SDLP, Alliance and Greens had joined, that left a minority of three and power with the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.

    That wasn't the point - Labour had lost 91 seats after 13 years in office - it had lost its mandate to govern. There had been a vote for change albeit not quite enough for a single-party Government. With Greece on the brink (seemingly) of falling out the Eurozone, the key was stability and only a Con-LD majority Government provided that.

    Add the philosophical convergence of Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and the Orange Bookers who were in charge of the LDs at the time and the Coalition was inevitable and the icing on the cake was Cameron's speech on the Friday after the election.

    To set the record straight, the Conservative negotiators led by Hague wouldn't even allow STV on a ballot paper (such was their fear it might win any referendum and end the prospect of a Conservative majority permanently). Clegg felt he had to offer the party "something" but the LDs have never supported AV. That was Clegg's first mistake - accepting a referendum on an issue he couldn't even sell to his own party. The second monumental blunder was tuition fees.

    It doesn't really matter what Davey and the LDs do in all honesty. The strong third party next time will be the SNP and if Labour plus SNP get close to or over a majority, no one will bother Davey.

    I suspect IF a Labour-SNP minority Government is formed and puts up a Queen's Speech, the Conservatives might well abstain as they did on Wilson's Queen's Speech in March 1974. The party will be in the middle of a leadership election in all probability.

    The question is less what happens if the SNP demand a second referendum and the vote is for independence than what happens if the SNP gets its second vote and fails again. Would we see the SNP remain the dominant force in Scotland after a second referendum defeat?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    Is there a Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) at the hospital in question? Giving them a hard time would at least relieve the tension. Doesdn't help being Friday, obvfs

    Best wishes
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    A while back (I've had no luck either lately) I has a cut in a retina which is regarded as a medical emergency and needed an eye op. After waiting two days to hear anything I took the bull by the horns, despite hating conflict, and called the hospital concerned, asked why I had received no contact and explained in no uncertain terms that a retinal tear can lead to retina detachment and blindness - and the delay in these circumstances and risks is unacceptable.

    I got a call from the specialist within two hours and was in for the op later that day.
    Wuss. DuraAce would have operated on himself.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited September 17
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
  • Am I a bad person for laughing at Laura Loomer catching Covid-19?

    The far-right, anti-Muslim, anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer says she’s tested positive for the coronavirus, after suffering from severe symptoms that she wrote left her feeling like she “got hit by a bus.”

    In a post on the Trumpist social network Gettr, Loomer complained that she started suffering from “fever, chills, a runny nose, sore throat, nausea and severe body aches” on Wednesday that she said felt like “a bad case of the flu... So I took a COVID test and it came back POSITIVE.”

    She added: “I have not taken the COVID-19 vaccine, and I don’t plan on ever taking it because it is unsafe and ineffective. Today, I immediately started a treatment of Azithromyacin and Hydroxychloroquine. I’m also taking the OrthoMune dietary supplement.” She said she’s also received the Regeneron antibody treatment used by ex-President Donald Trump.

    Last year, Loomer expressed a wish that she could catch COVID to show everyone that it was no big deal. She wrote on Parler in December 2020: “I hope I get COVID just so I can prove to people I’ve had bouts of food poisoning that are more serious and life threatening than a hyped up virus. Have you ever eaten bad fajitas? That will kill you faster than COVID.”

    However, in follow-up messages on her Telegram channel late Thursday, she made it clear that she was suffering severe symptoms. “Just pray for me please,” she wrote. “Can’t even begin to explain how brutal the body aches and nausea that come with COVID are. I am in so much pain.”

    She then posted more vaccine conspiracy theories, writing that the government “doesn’t want you to know what it really does,” despite the scientific fact that it would have offered her some protection.


    https://www.thedailybeast.com/laura-loomer-who-once-said-bad-fajitas-were-worse-than-covid-says-shes-tested-positive?via=twitter_page
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Germany votes in just nine days.

    The latest IPSOS poll - changes from 2017:

    Social Democrats: 27% (+6)
    Union CDU/CSU: 21% (-12)
    Greens: 18% (+9)
    Alternative for Germany: 11% (-2)
    Free Democrats: 10% (-1)
    Linke: 7% (-2)

    Another very good poll for the SPD - a solid 9% swing from 2017 with the Greens holding up well suggesting the Union could be caught between a Social Democratic rock and a Green hard place.

    There are regional elections being held alongside the federal election. In Mecklenburg, the SPD are polling at 40% with the Union and AfD on 15%. It looks as though the SPD will gain five of the six constituencies from the Union who will be left with their Greifswald stronghold.

    In Berlin, the SPD-Green-Linke regional Government looks set for re-election. The 12 constituencies in the city split Union 4 Linke 4 SPD 3 Green 1 in 2017. Entirely possible the SPD will pick up another two or three seats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
    You seem to think that there are two options: Conservative led government or Labour led one.

    That's not true.

    If the Conservatives were unwilling to make sufficient concessions to the DUP, the consequence would be another General Election, not a Starmer-led government.
    Only if a majority of MPs voted for one.

    Tory MPs would not unless polls showed a bounce and certainly not if polls showed Labour ahead nor would the DUP if they had maximum power as kingmakers
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
    You seem to think that there are two options: Conservative led government or Labour led one.

    That's not true.

    If the Conservatives were unwilling to make sufficient concessions to the DUP, the consequence would be another General Election, not a Starmer-led government.
    Only if a majority of MPs voted for one.

    Tory MPs would not unless polls showed a bounce and certainly not if polls showed Labour ahead nor would the DUP if they had maximum power as kingmakers
    Nope, the FTPA will be repealed, the Senex letter principles kick in.

    No need for a vote of MPs.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875
    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    You are right to be. Clap the NHS eh?

    My current gripe is teensy compared to yours, but paid £600 for a CT scan today because I'm not prepared to wait weeks for a scan and a year or more for the hernia operation that I already know I need. Total cost will be over £5k I think. Good use of my savings, I know, but still sticks in the craw.

    Is researching local private options worth considering in your husband's case?
    He needs antibiotics urgently. He has some food or something stuck in his throat and rotting causing an infection and the worry is that it will spread. This has all the hallmarks of what happened to me when I got a bad case of cellulitis infection in my leg last year and it spread and got worse quickly because not treated properly at the start.

    We're just being given the run around. I understand the pressures. But they are not listening to him when he says he can feel something stuck there hurting him. It's not a bloody scratch and it is not normal for someone to choke when drinking a cup of tea.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    Breaking

    Traffic light system scrapped and replaced with a red list and rest of the world from 4th October

    The whole system being a waste of time in the first place. Case numbers are falling across Europe; holidaymakers are here from almost everywhere, yet there are no (or very few) Brits to be seen.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Cyclefree said:

    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    You are right to be. Clap the NHS eh?

    My current gripe is teensy compared to yours, but paid £600 for a CT scan today because I'm not prepared to wait weeks for a scan and a year or more for the hernia operation that I already know I need. Total cost will be over £5k I think. Good use of my savings, I know, but still sticks in the craw.

    Is researching local private options worth considering in your husband's case?
    He needs antibiotics urgently. He has some food or something stuck in his throat and rotting causing an infection and the worry is that it will spread. This has all the hallmarks of what happened to me when I got a bad case of cellulitis infection in my leg last year and it spread and got worse quickly because not treated properly at the start.

    We're just being given the run around. I understand the pressures. But they are not listening to him when he says he can feel something stuck there hurting him. It's not a bloody scratch and it is not normal for someone to choke when drinking a cup of tea.
    🤞for you both.
  • IanB2 said:

    Breaking

    Traffic light system scrapped and replaced with a red list and rest of the world from 4th October

    The whole system being a waste of time in the first place. Case numbers are falling across Europe; holidaymakers are here from almost everywhere, yet there are no (or very few) Brits to be seen.
    Looks as if this will change and in the meantime large numbers have enjoyed a staycation this year helping our own holiday and leisure industry through difficult times
  • Cyclefree said:

    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    You are right to be. Clap the NHS eh?

    My current gripe is teensy compared to yours, but paid £600 for a CT scan today because I'm not prepared to wait weeks for a scan and a year or more for the hernia operation that I already know I need. Total cost will be over £5k I think. Good use of my savings, I know, but still sticks in the craw.

    Is researching local private options worth considering in your husband's case?
    He needs antibiotics urgently. He has some food or something stuck in his throat and rotting causing an infection and the worry is that it will spread. This has all the hallmarks of what happened to me when I got a bad case of cellulitis infection in my leg last year and it spread and got worse quickly because not treated properly at the start.

    We're just being given the run around. I understand the pressures. But they are not listening to him when he says he can feel something stuck there hurting him. It's not a bloody scratch and it is not normal for someone to choke when drinking a cup of tea.
    I cannot believe this nightmare you are both going through and if he has an infection then it is urgent he has antibiotics

    Best wishes to you both

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
    You seem to think that there are two options: Conservative led government or Labour led one.

    That's not true.

    If the Conservatives were unwilling to make sufficient concessions to the DUP, the consequence would be another General Election, not a Starmer-led government.
    Only if a majority of MPs voted for one.

    Tory MPs would not unless polls showed a bounce and certainly not if polls showed Labour ahead nor would the DUP if they had maximum power as kingmakers
    Nope, the FTPA will be repealed, the Senex letter principles kick in.

    No need for a vote of MPs.
    Senex letter principles require the monarch to appoint another PM capable of forming a working government.

    If the DUP abstain until the Tories give them concessions that would then be Starmer unless the Tories gave them those concessions.

    If polling showed no party would still win a majority in a snap election that would be the likely end result, Starmer appointed PM
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
  • Sky

    The story on travel is now the vaccinated v unvaccinated and clearly designed to encourage vaccination
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    stodge said:

    Germany votes in just nine days.

    The latest IPSOS poll - changes from 2017:

    Social Democrats: 27% (+6)
    Union CDU/CSU: 21% (-12)
    Greens: 18% (+9)
    Alternative for Germany: 11% (-2)
    Free Democrats: 10% (-1)
    Linke: 7% (-2)

    Another very good poll for the SPD - a solid 9% swing from 2017 with the Greens holding up well suggesting the Union could be caught between a Social Democratic rock and a Green hard place.

    There are regional elections being held alongside the federal election. In Mecklenburg, the SPD are polling at 40% with the Union and AfD on 15%. It looks as though the SPD will gain five of the six constituencies from the Union who will be left with their Greifswald stronghold.

    In Berlin, the SPD-Green-Linke regional Government looks set for re-election. The 12 constituencies in the city split Union 4 Linke 4 SPD 3 Green 1 in 2017. Entirely possible the SPD will pick up another two or three seats.

    Does that mean the seat currently held by Angela Merkel will go to the SPD, or is that the Greifswald one.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
    Becaus
    But why was France reluctant to get involved? Because it was concerned about civilian damages? Because it was concerned the war was unwinnable? Or because Saddam was France's tame source of oil and weapons contracts?

    Granted, being right for the wrong reasons is being still being right. But it doesn't necessarily give any reassurance about its future commitment to a common cause.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
    India are due to attend the US next week with Japan and South Korea
  • IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
    India are due to attend the US next week with Japan and South Korea
    On unrelated business presumably.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694

    Cyclefree said:

    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am going to vent now. Apologies in advance.

    But I am SO ANGRY.

    Hospital did not refer husband urgently to ENT. After calling them endlessly, still no answer from ENT service. GP has no urgent appointments. NHS 111 promised to get a duty doctor to call. No call.

    Now Husband running temperature, feeling worse and throat really quite painful. He has not eaten since Wednesday evening. So he needs some medication, some useful help and it is Friday evening. We are about to embark on our third trip in as many days to A&E and this time I am going inside and will be kicking up a fuss until they do something useful.

    If necessary I will drive him to Manchester or Preston or London come to that.

    This is just not good enough. It is scary. He is scared. I am furious.

    You are right to be. Clap the NHS eh?

    My current gripe is teensy compared to yours, but paid £600 for a CT scan today because I'm not prepared to wait weeks for a scan and a year or more for the hernia operation that I already know I need. Total cost will be over £5k I think. Good use of my savings, I know, but still sticks in the craw.

    Is researching local private options worth considering in your husband's case?
    He needs antibiotics urgently. He has some food or something stuck in his throat and rotting causing an infection and the worry is that it will spread. This has all the hallmarks of what happened to me when I got a bad case of cellulitis infection in my leg last year and it spread and got worse quickly because not treated properly at the start.

    We're just being given the run around. I understand the pressures. But they are not listening to him when he says he can feel something stuck there hurting him. It's not a bloody scratch and it is not normal for someone to choke when drinking a cup of tea.
    I cannot believe this nightmare you are both going through and if he has an infection then it is urgent he has antibiotics

    Best wishes to you both

    Quick thought @Cyclefree and I realise that you are in Cumbria which may not have the services but have you thought about a private GP / clinic, which might be more responsive?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,269
    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
    Becaus
    But why was France reluctant to get involved? Because it was concerned about civilian damages? Because it was concerned the war was unwinnable? Or because Saddam was France's tame source of oil and weapons contracts?

    Granted, being right for the wrong reasons is being still being right. But it doesn't necessarily give any reassurance about its future commitment to a common cause.
    If Saddam was France's poodle, then the "common cause" for Britain and America was to leave Iraq alone.
    Whichever why you slice it, France was right and we were wrong.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,823
    edited September 17

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    I suspect he is way more representative of it's current membership than you are.

    If we look at the people on this site everyone else with views similar to yours has left the party in disgust, leaving you and some rabid rightwingers..
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    He's what Douglas Hurd would describe as an "Ultra".
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,269

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    But he is a representative of the Conservative Party. So he has been selected and elected. You can't wash your hands of him entirely.
  • eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    I suspect he is way more representative of it's current membership than you are.

    If we look at the people on this site everyone else with views similar to yours has left the party in disgust, leaving you and some rabid rightwingers..
    I am not a member
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Pulpstar said:

    Some really bold leaks coming from State Department. In one France was not informed because “we knew they would go ballistic.” In another France was not informed “because we thought it was no big deal.” In a third the whole idea came from Australia

    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1438894070596874244?s=20

    Blink'en you'll miss it.
    According to Le Monde, Mons. Macron himself was warned.

    The way Paris says it learned the news is revealing and feeds the anger of French officials. According to our information, it was during a meeting on Wednesday morning, just hours before the official White House press conference, that Emmanuel Macron was formally warned, by his Australian counterpart, who wanted to speak to him as soon as possible. . Around the table are notably the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and the Minister of the Armed Forces, Florence Parly. Both are also informed by their entourage that their Australian counterparts wish to reach them urgently. Eyes meet and everyone quickly understands that the Naval Group submarine contract is in peril. The Council of Ministers is held in the wake, in a hectic atmosphere.
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/09/17/la-diplomatie-militaire-francaise-mise-en-echec_6095012_3210.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    It's above my paygrade, Big G. But my thing is detecting "chaps we can trust" type sentimental belicosity dressed up as geopolitical analysis, and I detected some.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    I have no qualms and no masks in calling the Frogs cheese eating surrender monkeys. If it's good enough for The Simpsons, it's good enough for me.

    Stop being so pretentious.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
    India are due to attend the US next week with Japan and South Korea
    On unrelated business presumably.
    The quad summit will have it at the top of its agenda as part of the Quad Security Dialogue

    'The new partnership was launched days ahead of the first in-person summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad in Washington on September 24. The meeting, being held six months after the maiden virtual Quad Summit, will be attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Australian Prime Minister Morrison and US President Biden'.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Breaking

    Traffic light system scrapped and replaced with a red list and rest of the world from 4th October

    Co-incidentally just before the Turkish Grand Prix, which was threatened with cancellation if Turkey remained on the UK red list.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited September 17
    ..

    (Already mentioned)
  • Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    But he is a representative of the Conservative Party. So he has been selected and elected. You can't wash your hands of him entirely.
    I can still call him out as others are
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    If the DUP do not get serious concessions from the Conservatives they will threaten to abstain until they do, guaranteed.

    As seen from 2017-19 the DUP are notoriously stubborn
    Again, you're answering a different point to the one I made.

    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, and the DUP 8, it is not possible that there will be a Starmer led government.

    That's it. It's not a complex point. You can agree with it or disagree with it. But I cannot see a situation where the DUP does not vote against a government with SDLP and Alliance support.
    The DUP would abstain in such a scenario, after all Starmer would at least partly remove the Irish Sea border through closer SM and CU alignment.

    So in that case until the Tories remove the border they have to offer the DUP something else eg a reduction in the abortion time limit to win them over while Frost works on the Irish Sea border
    You honestly think the DUP would abstain; that they would choose to allow the SDLP to help set UK government policy in Northern Ireland?

    That's not stubborn, that's surrender. It would be the end of the DUP.
    They would not vote for an SDLP backed government no but they would not vote for a Tory government which put a border in the Irish Sea and imposed abortion on Northern Ireland either without concessions
    You seem to think that there are two options: Conservative led government or Labour led one.

    That's not true.

    If the Conservatives were unwilling to make sufficient concessions to the DUP, the consequence would be another General Election, not a Starmer-led government.
    Only if a majority of MPs voted for one.

    Tory MPs would not unless polls showed a bounce and certainly not if polls showed Labour ahead nor would the DUP if they had maximum power as kingmakers
    If the House of Commons cannot pass a confidence motion, then there will be another General Election.

  • ping said:

    Excellent 0.5% property tax idea by the IPPR

    Should be much higher, IMO, but if 0.5% is on the ballot, I’ll vote for it.

    We can argue to raise it once it’s been established.

    Personally I’d go 5% and make it revenue neutral, taking it off income tax. Perhaps bollox a load of other stupid transaction taxes at the same time. Id get less angry about IHT, too, if we had a reasonable level of property tax. Id happily compromise with raising the IHT threshold.

    Not a bad idea.

    But you'd also need to ensure the owner is liable not tenants.

    Perhaps we could do the trick used for NI were wages are taxed on both sides. Say start with 0.5% of full price for the owner of the property and a further 0.5% of full price for the owner of the freehold. In the event that someone owns both then they pay both but we say until blue in the face it's only 0.5%.

    Then the Treasury could increase the tax by 0.5 - which is really 0.5% on both.
    Wasnt the whole point of replacing Rates with Council Tax to make sure residents paid, not owners? So renters wouldn't vote for profligate Labour councils without having to worry about paying their share of the bill.
    So instead people buy up and let out homes in profligate Labour councils ensuring that people can't get on the property ladder and have no reason not to vote Labour?

    If so, I'm not sure it's worked as intended.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Britain Decides - model update:

    Government loses its majority on the latest polls.

    CON: 316 MPs (-49)
    LAB: 241 (+39)
    SNP: 56 (+8)
    LDEM: 13 (+2)


    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1438877519659294721?s=20

    However it could stay in power with the 8 DUP MPs if they back the Tories again, assuming SF do not take their seats.

    What better way to win over our DUP friends than promising to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as a bonus while Lord Frost continues to work to remove the Irish Sea border?
    If the Conservatives have 316 seats, then they will remain in Government. No government without them is really possible.
    Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance comes to 318 seats on the new poll average, so the Conservatives would still need the 8 DUP MPs to get to 324 and stay in power
    I agree - but that wasn't my point.

    The DUP are not going to abstain on a Labour + SNP + LD + SDLP + Green + PC + Alliance confidence motion. Therefore, it is not possible to have a government that did not include the Conservatives.

    If the Conservative total was a few seats less (say 312), then a coalition like the one above would be possible, albeit not particularly stable.
    I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    Anyway, there’s not the slightest chance of the next Conservative manifesto containing a commitment to restrict abortions to 22 weeks or any other level. It might conceivably pledge to have another vote on the matter (like Cameron did over hunting…did that ever happen?) but it will be a free vote as it has always been.

    But even that is lower than 5%: I doubt the Prime Minister will want to be reminded on the campaign trail of his relationship with Petronnella Wyatt and his encouraging her….

    Given the latest polling average gives a hung parliament with the Tories needing DUP support to stay in power, offering the DUP the carrot of a reduction in the abortion limit to 22 weeks for the whole UK as well as lots of dosh for NI while Lord Frost works on trying to remove the Irish Sea border with the EU may be the only way Boris stays in No 10.

    In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it.

    And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will emphatically not contain any commitment to 22 weeks or any figure. Can you see Boris Johnson even giving it half a second’s thought bearing in mind his past? Be serious.
    Then the DUP would likely not give C and S then and Starmer becomes PM.

    Donaldson and the DUP are extremely hard and tough negotiators, they will not make the same mistake Clegg did with AV getting a vote out of Cameron but with no promise of support to get it passed.

    If there is no Tory majority then the manifesto will not have received a full mandate and have to be adapted, Boris will do so and whatever necessary to stay in power including a whipped vote to get the 22 weeks through and DUP C and S
    You have now not only crashed into the buffers but catapulted the train to the road outside the station. Utterly absurd. There is no way that Conservative MPs will be dragooned into voting for something so contentious and that wasn’t even in the manifesto on which they’d campaigned only a couple of weeks earlier. If Johnson tried, which he wouldn’t, the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons and the Tories further weakened.

    The DUP will have more important fish to fry if negotiations take place.
    OK then, Starmer becomes PM.

    Given the Irish Sea border is not going to be removed anytime soon the DUP will refuse to keep Boris and the Tories in power in the meantime unless they not only get vast sums of extra cash for NI but a reduction in the abortion timeframe for the whole UK to partly make up for the legalisation of abortion in NI Westminster imposed on them.

    Most Conservative MPs would also support the abortion reduction anyway and especially if it is the only way to keep a Tory government in power so you are wrong
    Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority against probably 80?) in the Commons and the DUP know that too.

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the likely political context. The Tories would have surrendered a majority of 80, a disaster even more profound than 2017. The party would be shattered and I suspect there would be a clamour to accept defeat and go into opposition, rather than staggering on deflated and dejected and at the mercy of the DUP.

    I’m afraid you are totally off the wall on this one.
    No, a tiny minority might not, mainly social liberals from wealthy commuter Remain areas like yours which are heading LD and may well elect LD MPs anyway.

    Social liberals are in decline in the party from a decade ago, social conservatives from the North and Midlands and small town and rural areas are becoming increasingly prominent. The new Tory base and most of the new Tory Parliamentary Party will happily deal with the DUP and happily cut the abortion time limit to 22 weeks to stay in power.

    No, we would not accept opposition, though if social liberals prefer to join the LDs in opposition to a Tory-DUP alliance fine, bye then

    Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a specified time limit. None whatsoever and it would be the first time ever that the party would do that. Even votes on hanging in the 1950s were free.

    You are spouting nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that with all the ugly hallmarks of intolerance and sectarianism that fortunately still has no place whatever in the broad political church that is the Conservative Party. And Boris is with me!

    By the way, it is distressing in the extreme that you seem to be gloating at the prospect of Mr Raab’s political demise.
    If the only way to win DUP support was to do so then they would. There was a Tory majority in the 1950s, under this scenario there would not be and the DUP or TUV would be kingmakers.

    I am not gloating at Raab's demise, for starters Raab did vote against imposing abortion on NI in 2019.

    https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/Esher-and-Walton/Dominic-Raab

    However the reality is clear, the Tory vote in wealthy socially liberal Remain areas like yours is in relative decline to the LDs, the Tory vote in socially conservative, Leave voting rural and small town and industrial ex Labour voting areas is growing. As it does so the party will become more like the latter than the former

    You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored.
    Somehow I feel that the nutters like HY now inside your party are not going to be seen off by this surfeit of mildness…
    @HYUFD is not at all representative of the conservative party
    He's what Douglas Hurd would describe as an "Ultra".
    I was always impressed by the seeming accurate caricature of Douglas Hurd by Alan Clark.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
    India are due to attend the US next week with Japan and South Korea
    On unrelated business presumably.
    The quad summit will have it at the top of its agenda as part of the Quad Security Dialogue

    'The new partnership was launched days ahead of the first in-person summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad in Washington on September 24. The meeting, being held six months after the maiden virtual Quad Summit, will be attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Australian Prime Minister Morrison and US President Biden'.
    So nothing to do with AUUKUS then. Glad we got that straight.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    I have no qualms and no masks in calling the Frogs cheese eating surrender monkeys. If it's good enough for The Simpsons, it's good enough for me.

    Stop being so pretentious.
    Impressive.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    Have there been any polls on AUKUS? It strikes me as stark raving bonkers!

    Anyone think it's a good idea except for Duncan Smith and provisional wing of the Tory Party?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    I may have missed this one being posted overnight?

    Sheffield
    Firth Park
    Lab 1091 40.2% -16.5%
    LD 1050 38.7% +34.1%
    Con 258 9.5% -14.7%
    Green 162 6.0% -3.8%
    Ind 155 5.7% +1.0%
    Lab hold
  • Roger said:

    Have there been any polls on AUKUS? It strikes me as stark raving bonkers!

    Anyone think it's a good idea except for Duncan Smith and provisional wing of the Tory Party?

    KeirStarmer, Ian BLackford, the HoC, the Trans Pacific Countries and some EU ones for a start
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,461
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
    Yes, Iraq. Lots got swept up in that anti French sentiment as I remember. All very embarrassing, looking back.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    It's above my paygrade, Big G. But my thing is detecting "chaps we can trust" type sentimental belicosity dressed up as geopolitical analysis, and I detected some.
    Despite Trump the USA and Australia are chaps we can trust.

    The French and Germans are not.
  • Roger said:

    Have there been any polls on AUKUS? It strikes me as stark raving bonkers!

    Anyone think it's a good idea except for Duncan Smith and provisional wing of the Tory Party?

    I suspect that it's passed most people by. For example;
    https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/

  • Roger said:

    Have there been any polls on AUKUS? It strikes me as stark raving bonkers!

    Anyone think it's a good idea except for Duncan Smith and provisional wing of the Tory Party?

    KeirStarmer, Ian BLackford, the HoC, the Trans Pacific Countries and some EU ones for a start
    There are Trans Pacific Countries now?

    Are those countries in the Pacific calling out TERF Pacific Countries?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited September 17
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    It's above my paygrade, Big G. But my thing is detecting "chaps we can trust" type sentimental belicosity dressed up as geopolitical analysis, and I detected some.
    In simple terms Australia wants nuclear powered subs and France was supplying diesel

    Australia agreed with the US to supply the technology which is shared only by the UK to build the subs in Adelaide

    The Trans Pacific are building an alliance CPTPP to combat China in trade and with the UK and now US seeking to join

    France will be included along with Canada at some point but not in the exclusive AUKUS deal

  • Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
    Becaus
    But why was France reluctant to get involved? Because it was concerned about civilian damages? Because it was concerned the war was unwinnable? Or because Saddam was France's tame source of oil and weapons contracts?

    Granted, being right for the wrong reasons is being still being right. But it doesn't necessarily give any reassurance about its future commitment to a common cause.
    If Saddam was France's poodle, then the "common cause" for Britain and America was to leave Iraq alone.
    Whichever why you slice it, France was right and we were wrong.
    Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.

    It's a shame what happened afterwards had so many avoidable mistakes. But no regrets that Saddam is gone.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    It's above my paygrade, Big G. But my thing is detecting "chaps we can trust" type sentimental belicosity dressed up as geopolitical analysis, and I detected some.
    In simple terms Australia wants nuclear powered subs and France was supplying diesel

    Australia agreed with the US to supply the technology which is shared only by the UK to build the subs in Adelaide

    The Trans Pacific are building an alliance CPTPP to combat China in trade and with the UK and now US seeking to join

    France will be included along with Canada at some point but not in the exclusive AUKUS deal

    While I hope the US joins the CPTPP, it is far from certain.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    India are keeping shtum. They don't want to jeopardize their allegiance with France.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-maintains-silence-as-china-fumes-over-aukus-101631816592451.html
    India are due to attend the US next week with Japan and South Korea
    On unrelated business presumably.
    The quad summit will have it at the top of its agenda as part of the Quad Security Dialogue

    'The new partnership was launched days ahead of the first in-person summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad in Washington on September 24. The meeting, being held six months after the maiden virtual Quad Summit, will be attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Australian Prime Minister Morrison and US President Biden'.
    So nothing to do with AUUKUS then. Glad we got that straight.
    It is AUKUS and it at the heart of these discussions

    It is in the name - Security Dialogue and includes Biden and Morrison the architects of this agreement
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    If you think this Anglosphere v China nonsense is as you describe I would suggest you listen to Japan, South Korea, India, and the Trans Pacific countries to which this is very real, and the reason it is widely backed including by the HoC and even some EU countries
    It's above my paygrade, Big G. But my thing is detecting "chaps we can trust" type sentimental belicosity dressed up as geopolitical analysis, and I detected some.
    In simple terms Australia wants nuclear powered subs and France was supplying diesel

    (Snip)
    AIUI it was more complex than that. If Australia had wanted nuclear powered subs, they would have put that in the proposals back when the project started - many aeons ago now.

    They've recently changed their minds, and have decided against conventional power in favour of nuclear. In some ways this makes sense, given the area of water they will have to patrol. But France doesn't want to sell its nuclear tech, so something has to give.

    Cancelling the contract with Naval Group will be fraught and possibly expensive; however I have little sympathy with NG and France: they really have mucked things up.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,269

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Yeah I really don't think that any politician would trust Johnson to form a pact with him. He s&&t the bed with his border in the Irish Sea which no British PM could ever agree to and standing staring business people in the eye saying there will be no checks between NI and GB.

    You would have to be a special type of stupid to believe anything he said when offering a pact with the political party you lead.

    I think that if Johnson lost his majority, there would be a new leader to negotiate with.

    That said, there is no way that the Lib Dems would support the party of Brexit. We want closer economic, social and cultural links with the EU. EEA or similar.
    Yes absolutely but look at the Cons now - flying high why would there be a new leader? Sure the Cons/BJ's numbers are slipping but this is mid-term they should be shocking instead they are bobbing around parity with Lab and still generally 5pts ahead.

    I just don't see a new leader. And I backed Boris to be out by, er, Sep 2021 god help me.
    My point is that if Johnson were needing to negotiate a coalition or C and S, he would be doing so because he lost more seats than his current majority. There would be a new Con leader, sure as eggs is eggs. Probably not quickly enough to negotiate though possibly that would be done by an acting leader.
    Didn't the LibDems make clear in 2010 that while they might go into coalition with Labour, the price would be replacing Brown? (Not that the maths would have worked).
    Yes, I don't think it tenable to support a PM who has just been rejected. Only the DUP make that mistake!
    May wasnt rejected, she led the most popularly supported UK wide party.

    It was a failure for her as she went backwards but it gets a but overegged.
    There's an old saying that Success = Performance - Expectations
    There is. And it's the very saying that you reject whenever I try to explain to you why GE17 was a success for Jeremy Corbyn.
    It was a relative success but he still lost.

    If Accrington Stanley hold Liverpool to a draw, earn a replay at Anfield where they again hold them to a draw, it's still a draw after stoppage time and they only get knocked out via penalties then that would be a great relative success for Accrington Stanley. But they'd still be knocked out and Liverpool would still progress to the next round.
    Yes, a success relative to expectations but a technical loss. That's the saying put another way and applied to Corbyn's GE17. Ditto and opposite, with May, a failure relative to expectations but a technical win. Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, May, Corbyn, football, politics, whatever, one just needs to be consistent with it.

    And while we're in ticking off mode, I noticed your mask slipped yesterday and you succumbed to "cheese eating surrender monkeys" syntax for France and the French, whilst glorying in this latest Anglosphere v China nonsense. Another outing for "Frogs" was clearly only just resisted.

    It was noted. That's all I'll say for now.
    "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is an impressive moral vacuity indicator when youi think for 2 seconds why they got called that. I wish my country was cowardly like that.
    Becaus
    But why was France reluctant to get involved? Because it was concerned about civilian damages? Because it was concerned the war was unwinnable? Or because Saddam was France's tame source of oil and weapons contracts?

    Granted, being right for the wrong reasons is being still being right. But it doesn't necessarily give any reassurance about its future commitment to a common cause.
    If Saddam was France's poodle, then the "common cause" for Britain and America was to leave Iraq alone.
    Whichever why you slice it, France was right and we were wrong.
    Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.

    It's a shame what happened afterwards had so many avoidable mistakes. But no regrets that Saddam is gone.
    It's more than just a "shame". Civilians have been killed at a much faster rate since Saddam was toppled.
    We all know Saddam was bad. But were we better?
This discussion has been closed.