Howdy, Stranger!

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

Barely a third think they’ll get timely treatment from the NHS – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    Carnyx said:

    Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.
    No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality
    Theft, adultery, false witness, coveting/greed ... sure, our Parliament is just fine as it is today.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,354

    Continuing the theme:
    Chess has 3 time controls - Classical/Quickplay/Blitz.
    Cricket has 3 time controls - Test/One day/T20.
    4. You missed the hundred.

    (Runs for cover)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,907
    HYUFD said:

    No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times
    Please put your penis away
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited August 2022

    Yes, but a small high width-to-height rectangular display is *not* good for GUIs. They are reasonable for CLIs.

    The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.

    What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.

    Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...
    It was indeed 8 lines of text; see pic here

    http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/z88/
  • HYUFD said:

    No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times
    You do talk such tripe
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    How many times has it been amended?
    Not since 1971
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,785
    HYUFD said:

    It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality
    yay, another religion thread.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,848
    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
    Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,907
    HYUFD said:

    Not since 1971
    How many times has it been amended?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,304
    HYUFD said:

    Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures
    It's 3/4 of the States and the President has no veto power.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times
    The point is, unlike you, most people in the UK aren't stuck in 1513 or 1638, and Parliament could legislate for whatever they want.
  • Eabhal said:

    yay, another religion thread.
    Noooooooo please
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    Eabhal said:

    yay, another religion thread.
    tbf this is more constitution than marital aids.
  • Please put your penis away
    I have never heard a keyboard called that !!!!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    You do talk such tripe
    Yes well at least I understand our system of government unlike you
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,305
    rcs1000 said:

    Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
    Could he also confirm if he wishes to see all illegal immigrants expelled from the UK and how this would happen?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,848

    Yes, but a small high width-to-height rectangular display is *not* good for GUIs. They are reasonable for CLIs.

    The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.

    What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.

    Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...
    Getting stuff manufactured these days is not difficult, so you don't need it to have a mass market, just a sensible niche.
  • That sort of attitude is very 2020. Really dates you if you don't mind me saying so.
    Yes, I realise that holding opinions based on scientific evidence is rather passé nowadays. I really should move on from reality-based arguments.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    HYUFD said:

    Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
    What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality
    So it would be like eating ham?

    Have you any idea how mad you actually are?
  • Carnyx said:

    The point is, unlike you, most people in the UK aren't stuck in 1513 or 1638, and Parliament could legislate for whatever they want.
    Absolutely
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    Carnyx said:

    The point is, unlike you, most people in the UK aren't stuck in 1513 or 1638, and Parliament could legislate for whatever they want.
    Not unless the Monarch also signs it.

    If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
    I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

    And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing
    We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Not unless the Monarch also signs it.

    If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
    Parliament can legislate to erase the Monarchy and its role in signing laws. Simple as that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command
    227 tanks, and 112K troops. You're very out of date.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    How many times has it been amended?
    Not in my lifetime
  • HYUFD said:

    We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command
    You are embarrassing
  • HYUFD said:

    Not in my lifetime
    Why not answer the question
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714
    On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.

    Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.

    Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited August 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Parliament can legislate to erase the Monarchy and its role in signing laws. Simple as that.
    No it can't as the Monarch would veto it and it has no means to enforce it as the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament.

    Now of course the Monarch would never veto legislation passed by Parliament unless it was something as evil as legalising murder which was also not a manifesto commitment otherwise it might lead to another civil war but legally they could
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,953
    HYUFD said:

    We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command
    The Duke of York had ten thousand men*

    *allegedly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    rcs1000 said:

    Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
    Er, no?

    It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK

    If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,224
    rcs1000 said:

    The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

    If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

    The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

    In the short term, we have two options.

    We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

    Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

    Those are really the only two short-term options.

    In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

    In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
    My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

    The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

    Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192

    Why not answer the question
    The US constitution has been amended 27 times
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    Battery made of aluminum, sulfur and salt proves fast, safe and low-cost

    https://newatlas.com/energy/aluminum-sulfur-salt-battery-fast-safe-low-cost/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119

    Cricket is highly boring and tedious, especially the five day version. That's why hardly anyone outside the Commonwealth plays it.
    In my view five-day Test cricket is the finest of all sports. The extended playing time gives room for the drama of a close contest to arise naturally and gradually, just as many of the best foods or drinks involve a long maturing time to develop the depths of flavour that mark them out.

    Cricket is, I believe, unique in all sports in having two timescales that run in parallel. It has a batting timescale, which is relatively slow, in that the batters must concentrate and accumulate over the course of an innings - even in T20 there are 120 balls to be played. And then it has a bowling timescale, which can be much faster, where all ten wickets in an innings may fall extremely quickly, and a single wicket, in a single ball, can turn a match on its head.

    Added to this you have additional factors provided by the changing condition of the ball and pitch, which arguably add two more timescales to a match, particularly a first-class match played over several days.

    I enjoy watching a game of football, and other sports also have their charms, but nothing compares with cricket. It is a great gift.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    You are embarrassing
    Irrespective of that, it's a serious point, because so far as I am aware there is no limit to Parliament's powers. For instance, the "Glorious Revolution" which HYUFD mentioned earlier, in those very Whig-historiographical terms, basically constituted Parliament deposing the Stuart dynasty for a second time.

    That they replaced them with another lot from the Continent (albeit married to James VII's daughter) doesn't change the basic principle that deposition is possible.
  • Leon said:

    Er, no?

    It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK

    If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
    Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    You are embarrassing
    Still right though
  • HYUFD said:

    Still right though
    No you are not as is demonstrated by posters on here
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

    The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

    Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

    Disagree about onshore fracking. It's a crap idea made up to make Tories feel good. The geology and the practicalities don't make sense. it's too slow and too ineffectual, and it'll wreck whole landscapes as RT so well showed yesterday (to a level I for one had not realised).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

    And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    edited August 2022

    Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?
    They have. And they have visibly failed here. If this continues - and why should it not? indeed, why should it not get worse? - it is a major problem for them. Of course Labour would not do any better, but people are rightly blaming the government
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119

    4. You missed the hundred.

    (Runs for cover)
    They're playing a 60-ball competition in the Caribbean now that they're calling "6ixty". And, of course, first-class matches have been played over four, five, or six days in England, in just the last year and a bit.

    There is also an indoor cricket variant called last man standing which is interesting, or I may have confused two different things there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    No you are not as is demonstrated by posters on here
    Oh I very much am
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,196
    edited August 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Irrespective of that, it's a serious point, because so far as I am aware there is no limit to Parliament's powers. For instance, the "Glorious Revolution" which HYUFD mentioned earlier, in those very Whig-historiographical terms, basically constituted Parliament deposing the Stuart dynasty for a second time.

    That they replaced them with another lot from the Continent (albeit married to James VII's daughter) doesn't change the basic principle that deposition is possible.

    If you can make it stick (and avoid getting yourself strung up or run out of the country), anything is possible... And making something stick is a lot easier if you have your hands on the practical levers of power rather than the ceremonial ones.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    The US constitution has been amended 27 times
    Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192

    Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?
    Only until 2017 when Bluekip took over.
  • HYUFD said:

    Oh I very much am
    Oh no you aren't
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,224
    Carnyx said:

    Disagree about onshore fracking. It's a crap idea made up to make Tories feel good. The geology and the practicalities don't make sense. it's too slow and too ineffectual, and it'll wreck whole landscapes as RT so well showed yesterday (to a level I for one had not realised).
    Russia Today? I certainly wouldn't trust that as an unbiased source on UK fracking.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Hang on.

    There's insurance, there's depreciation, there's overtime. Plus there's the fact that JRM might be using a driver from the pool. And the fewer journeys there are by ministerial car, the fewer that are needed.
    Those are largely fixed costs. That's the point. The marginal cost of JRM's jolly boys' outing would have been petrol and a plate of Sainsbury's cheapest sandwiches. The car and driver would be paid for even if JRM never ventured past London, SW1.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Oh no you aren't
    Must be Christmas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited August 2022
    pm215 said:

    If you can make it stick (and avoid getting yourself strung up or run out of the country), anything is possible... And making something stick is a lot easier if you have your hands on the practical levers of power rather than the ceremonial ones.
    Hence too if Trump won in 2024 and got the armed forces behind him he could largely stay President indefinitely whatever Congress thought
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,100
    Leon said:

    Er, no?

    It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK

    If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
    How?
  • HYUFD said:

    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
    As a Christian your last sentence is a contradiction of your faith
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited August 2022

    Russia Today? I certainly wouldn't trust that as an unbiased source on UK fracking.
    What on earth are you talking about? Never watched it in my life. Ah - I'm talking about our own oilfield worker.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,153
    You're all getting very angry. Clearly you need a Simpsons Meme to calm you down:


  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,196
    HYUFD said:

    Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US
    The 27th amendment was ratified in, er, 1992, which is considerably less than 50 years ago. HTH!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,907
    HYUFD said:

    Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US
    You're the one who adopted your usual pig-headed no-nuance position of "impossible".

    You could have said "constitutions can't be overridden or amended easily, especially in a polarised political environment" but instead you decided to dig a pointless hole.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,224

    Russia Today? I certainly wouldn't trust that as an unbiased source on UK fracking.
    But more seriously, if its slow, ineffectual, uneconomical, unprofitable, slim pickings, and all the other charges I've seen levelled at it over recent days, it does not need to be banned. The fact that it has been, suggests people do want to do it and make money by so doing - especially in the current market.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708

    On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.

    Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.

    Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.

    Weirdly like Brown-Blair in mid 1990s.

    Surely a coincidence?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    pm215 said:

    If you can make it stick (and avoid getting yourself strung up or run out of the country), anything is possible... And making something stick is a lot easier if you have your hands on the practical levers of power rather than the ceremonial ones.
    Which, for instance, Parliament did to a considerable degree in the fixture vs Chas Stuart.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    But more seriously, if its slow, ineffectual, uneconomical, unprofitable, slim pickings, and all the other charges I've seen levelled at it over recent days, it does not need to be banned. The fact that it has been, suggests people do want to do it and make money by so doing - especially in the current market.
    Nope - we don't want idiots wrecking people's houses and towns. See RT's comments yesterday on fracking.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,562
    edited August 2022
    DavidL said:

    Feel free to criticise me all you like @Cyclefree , I probably deserve it. My family has had far too much contact with NHS mental health services over the last 25 years, nearly all of which I wouldn’t speak of on a public site.
    Suffice to say that I would no longer have as many children had we not been able to buy in substantial support when it was needed. I am not making light of it in any way. Those who have had experience of those services find the claimed adoration of the NHS quite incomprehensible.

    I am sorry to hear that. I wish you and yours the very best. Truly.

    I do not adore the NHS. Some things it does very well, some very badly. Mental health is in the latter category.

    I only speak now of my personal experience because it happened a long time ago and I feel I can now and because it was the loneliest time of my life and if saying something helps others to feel that they are not alone then that is, I hope, something.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
    That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    IshmaelZ said:

    That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
    Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,907
    HYUFD said:

    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
    The Devil's gas bill is going to be ridiculous. I hope he got a lengthy fix.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    Carnyx said:

    Which, for instance, Parliament did to a considerable degree in the fixture vs Chas Stuart.
    Charles Stuart could have won though and ruled by divine right, had Edgehill and Naseby gone the other way
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
    But you are the one who claims to be a Christian. And it is certainly a sin to claim that someone is damned full stop.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970

    How?
    it's tricky. I'd say: withdraw from the ECHR, change the laws so stupid liberal lawyers can fuck off, start the flights to Rwanda, and make sure you deport A LOT to Rwanda, and make sure some Albanians are on the flights

    I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    You're the one who adopted your usual pig-headed no-nuance position of "impossible".

    You could have said "constitutions can't be overridden or amended easily, especially in a polarised political environment" but instead you decided to dig a pointless hole.
    I said near impossible not impossible
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Charles Stuart could have won though and ruled by divine right, had Edgehill and Naseby gone the other way
    But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,224

    The Devil's gas bill is going to be ridiculous. I hope he got a lengthy fix.
    He went for a heat exchanger a while back. Sadly the fiery lake is now the tepid pond.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    The Devil's gas bill is going to be ridiculous. I hope he got a lengthy fix.
    Geothermal innit.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,644

    On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.

    Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.

    Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.

    Yes, I've been wondering for some time if it's remarkable discipline or merely lack of inspiration. I'm starting to think it is the former, just as you say.
  • HYUFD said:

    Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
    My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
  • HYUFD said:

    Charles Stuart could have won though and ruled by divine right, had Edgehill and Naseby gone the other way
    ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    pm215 said:

    The 27th amendment was ratified in, er, 1992, which is considerably less than 50 years ago. HTH!
    It was actually submitted to Congress for ratification in 1789
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,824
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    it's tricky. I'd say: withdraw from the ECHR, change the laws so stupid liberal lawyers can fuck off, start the flights to Rwanda, and make sure you deport A LOT to Rwanda, and make sure some Albanians are on the flights

    I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start
    But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT?
    And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways.
    The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    Leon said:

    it's tricky. I'd say: withdraw from the ECHR, change the laws so stupid liberal lawyers can fuck off, start the flights to Rwanda, and make sure you deport A LOT to Rwanda, and make sure some Albanians are on the flights

    I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start
    Hmm, the Rwandans might have something to say to that. What happens once that nice boutique hostel is full and they start complaining? As far as I know, it's up to them to stop incoming flights should they so decide, is it not?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,428

    Friends just back from the fringe tell me Edinburgh stinks.
    It always has and it always will, being full of Edinbuggers. The tune “The Flowers of Edinburgh” was written around 1740, and the place hasn’t improved since. Come to Glasgow instead.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    Carnyx said:

    But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
    Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,924

    Cricket is highly boring and tedious, especially the five day version. That's why hardly anyone outside the Commonwealth plays it.
    One day you might change your mind about cricket. I hope so.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714

    Weirdly like Brown-Blair in mid 1990s.

    Surely a coincidence?
    Yes, that's his model. Why change a winning formula?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    stodge said:

    Early evening all :)

    I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.

    As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.

    On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.

    Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.

    Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.

    It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333

    My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
    Tough he started it
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,644
    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    dixiedean said:

    But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT?
    And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways.
    The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
    Sigh

    No, it's not
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,824
    HYUFD said:

    Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
    It was a little more complex than that.
  • He went for a heat exchanger a while back. Sadly the fiery lake is now the tepid pond.
    Geothermal surely!
  • Yes, I've been wondering for some time if it's remarkable discipline or merely lack of inspiration. I'm starting to think it is the former, just as you say.
    It's what old-style Grammar Schools were very good at.

    Making bright children work insanely hard. When it works, it's an incredibly potent combination.

    (And fortunately for SKS, circumstances are going to provide the agenda and the vision. The vision will be Just Make It All Calm Down, and the agenda will be to patiently deep clean everything.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
    You're showing historical anachronism and hindsight. Firstly, it's your party in power at present, so ... Secondly, nobody knew what Cromwell and the others would be like in, say, 1635, any more than we can say how Parliament would turn out in the future.

  • HYUFD said:

    Tough he started it
    What a childish non Christian response
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,824
    Leon said:

    Sigh

    No, it's not
    Well then.
    What is it then?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,333
    edited August 2022

    Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.

    Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.

    It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
    No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on
    the combined right of centre vote
    is 47% in the polls.

    SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,428
    Carnyx said:

    Geothermal innit.
    A heat pump from the Phlegethon.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,824
    These Pakistani floods are an absolute nightmare.
This discussion has been closed.