Alex Salmond has died – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

nico679 said:

Not sure if it’s been posted yet but two new polls out from NY Times/Siena .

Good news for Harris and Trump .

Harris leads 50 to 47 in Pennsylvania

Trump leads 51 to 46 in Arizona

Leon said:

TimS said:

carnforth said:

dixiedean said:

69 isn't particularly young, is it?

Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.

69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

Buy a smartwatch

TimS said:

MattW said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Wow

Poland suspends the right of asylum

"Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
@donaldtusk
in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

"I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

"🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.

Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended

So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely

So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.

The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet

Sure, sure.

That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.

Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?

Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

"The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
@GuyChazan
⁩ ⁦
⁩ ⁦
@FT"

https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


effectively
/ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
adverb
1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
"make sure that resources are used effectively"

2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
"they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"

Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

And when Orban is in the Chair.

Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

Burgessian said:

FrankBooth said:

Undeniably a canny politician and much smarter than most we see nowadays. Becoming an SNP First minister and getting 45% in the independence referendum were historic achievements. The latter might not seem like it until you remember that historic polling would not have predicted they would get near that. The casual attitude of unionists to the result and subsequent events remains disappointing.

Salmond was like Stage One of the independence rocket. He blasted them up out of the UKs atmosphere (or so it seemed). A massive achievement. Problem was Stage Two failed to ignite (la Sturgeon) and they drifted back down to earth. They splashed down with Humza and Swinney is busy in the lifeboat.

HYUFD said:

SonofContrarian said:

David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart Screwed the country over royally when he held the EU referendum...

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

MJW said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

I can't keep up with the looney left.

They do hate P&O, they don't like Starmer cosying up to them.

In related news, they are back on board with the £1bn investment.

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

TimS said:

carnforth said:

dixiedean said:

69 isn't particularly young, is it?

Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.

69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

carnforth said:

TimS said:

MattW said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Wow

Poland suspends the right of asylum

"Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
@donaldtusk
in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

"I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

"🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.

Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended

So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely

So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.

The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet

Sure, sure.

That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.

Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?

Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

"The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
@GuyChazan
⁩ ⁦
⁩ ⁦
@FT"

https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


effectively
/ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
adverb
1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
"make sure that resources are used effectively"

2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
"they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"

Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

And when Orban is in the Chair.

Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.

How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

Is there a Schengen state without FoM?

darkage said:

TimS said:

carnforth said:

dixiedean said:

69 isn't particularly young, is it?

Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.

69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

It is surprising how many people fall at around age 70, I have a relative close to death at this age, after a brief infectious disease which he just couldn't recover from. One month going away for weeks at the time in the woods and going out on his motorbike, the next month unconscious and being moved to hospice care. An ex colleagues wife, also seemingly active, is a similar age and has been told she may not make it to her next birthday due to inoperable heart failure.

It is worth reflecting on the retirement age being 68 when instances like this are considered.

Leon said:

MJW said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

I can't keep up with the looney left.

I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


"Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

“He is a politician who has no political talent.""

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/

Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.

No

Cicero said:

Leon said:

MJW said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

I can't keep up with the looney left.

I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


"Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

“He is a politician who has no political talent.""

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/

Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.

No

Yes

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?

HYUFD said:

SonofContrarian said:

David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum

Nigelb said:

You've got to laugh.

Eton among elite private schools set to cash in on windfall from new VAT rules
VAT-registered schools will be able to claim refunds for tax paid on capital projects over past 10 years
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/12/eton-among-elite-private-schools-set-to-cash-in-on-windfall-from-new-vat-rules

ohnotnow said:

DavidL said:

Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.

Cicero said:

ohnotnow said:

DavidL said:

Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.

Genuinely I doubt it. I knew him a little and was at the same uni as his brother,l. He was a one-of-a-kind and it was truly a singular moment in Scottish politics. Independence is gone for this generation and maybe for ever.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

SonofContrarian said:

David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum

David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.

sarissa said:

On topic, does his current Court of Session petition alleging misfeasance by civil servants now fall by the wayside? Several of Sturgeon’s acolytes in the Scottish Civil Service would heave a sigh of relief.

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

I can't keep up with the looney left.

I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


"Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

“He is a politician who has no political talent.""

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/

Yet somehow he won the lab leadership, turned the party around and won a landslide.

He got extremely lucky: he was the last man standing with Corbyn, the Tories imploded, Covid and Ukraine speeded them on, and so on

What Starmer is good at is being a stroppy opposition player, he is competitive, and he was needling and persistent in the Commons. He probably accelerated the Tories' demise, to a modest extent

But the landslide is built on sand. 33.7% on a 60% turnout. Against one of the most unpopular governments in many decades. That shows how poor he is, in reality, and he's not going to get better

Indeed, there have been 5 A+ politicians in UK politics this century, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and yes also Alex Salmond. Starmer is not one of them, nor are Jenrick or Badenoch

Boris is not an “A+ politician”.
While one cannot deny his charisma, he really barely rates on any ordinary political dimension. Though oftent touted for his campaigning, he doesn’t actually even do that. He’s essentially a television personality.

Your list omits Brown, Sturgeon, and perhaps Drake, perhaps Gove, perhaps Osborn.

Boris is an A+ politician, he delivered Brexit and won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher.


Brown and Gove are B- politicians, even Osborne and Sturgeon only A-

dixiedean said:

69 isn't particularly young, is it?

carnforth said:

TimS said:

carnforth said:

TimS said:

MattW said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Wow

Poland suspends the right of asylum

"Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
@donaldtusk
in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

"I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

"🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.

Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended

So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely

So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.

The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet

Sure, sure.

That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.

Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?

Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

"The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
@GuyChazan
⁩ ⁦
⁩ ⁦
@FT"

https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


effectively
/ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
adverb
1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
"make sure that resources are used effectively"

2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
"they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"

Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

And when Orban is in the Chair.

Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.

How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

Is there a Schengen state without FoM?

Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein

Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today

You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

Putin wants discord.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today

You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

Putin wants discord.

TimS said:

carnforth said:

TimS said:

carnforth said:

TimS said:

MattW said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Wow

Poland suspends the right of asylum

"Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
@donaldtusk
in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

"I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

"🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.

Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended

So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely

So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.

The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet

Sure, sure.

That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.

Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?

Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

"The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
@GuyChazan
⁩ ⁦
⁩ ⁦
@FT"

https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


effectively
/ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
adverb
1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
"make sure that resources are used effectively"

2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
"they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"

Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

And when Orban is in the Chair.

Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.

How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

Is there a Schengen state without FoM?

Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein

Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.

Before Brexit I had to count my days in Switzerland religiously and if I went over a certain number my employer had to apply for a work permit. Failure to do so invalidated any right to live and work there.

Here are the rules.

https://www.ch.ch/en/foreign-nationals-in-switzerland/working-in-switzerland/#citizens-of-euefta-member-states

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue

New definition of the word 'every'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married

A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

JosiasJessop said:

darkage said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today

You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

Putin wants discord.

I am not sure about this theory but there is a brilliant account of how the Russian state manipulates the media, both domestically and internationally : "Nothing is true and everything is possible" by Peter Pomerantsev (2016). The basic point is that all narratives are co-opted and manipulated to maintain order internally and to sow discord externally.
The account of 'Russia Today' is particularly brilliant. It is also a very readable book, about 200 pages or so, one you can read on the tube etc.

I'm pretty convinced that that is one of the approaches they take. As an example; it might be good to fund an anti-oil environmental movement in the UK, even though Russia depends on oil and gas. Because it causes us more problems internally, and there are plenty of other markets for oil and gas.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.

It's who pays for that security. If they need extra security, they should pay for it. If they require official police help, they should pay for it.

"taxpayer-funded" is the major issue (there's a minor one about whether they should have the right to scarce police resources; that's an easier judgement.)

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue

New definition of the word 'every'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married

A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850

Many popes were dodgy and dissolute, no allegedly about it.

I've got a book about this somewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b

This thread has an interesting theory about where the Tories went wrong, which I find compelling. They lost because nothing they did worked: austerity, Brexit, healthcare reform, levelling up etc

https://bsky.app/profile/cjayanetti.bsky.social/post/3l6dbyxls4e23

That may be true, but Johnson had less than a year before Covid struck. After March 2020, pretty much all of government was (rightly) focussed on that.

Blaming the failure of 'levelling up' on Johnson given the length of time he had before Covid struck is, IMV, stupid. And even if covid had not struck, it was a policy that would take a decade or more to show real effects.

The sadness is that 'levelling up' has been utterly ignore by his successors.

For the rest of it: yes, they're much more arguable.

darkage said:

Malmesbury said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.

Many progressives won't even acknowledge that 'PC Culture' exists, they believe it is all just 'common sense'. In most cases the most appropriate response is to just leave them alone with their opinions and watch how things play out.

If Trump wins it is at least in part because progressives have succumbed to belief and ideology over practical politics. It is most obvious with the migrant question. Money and resources gets poured in to accommodating people who have entered the country illegally, in a context where the state is failing to provide basic assistance to its own citizens. It should be obvious that citizens should always be prioritised over migrants but there is a kind of denial of reality and the issue becomes too hard to address for fear of breaking taboos in the tribe. Trump just plays absolutely brilliantly on these weaknesses; his opponents are even happy to help him along by insulting his supporters and claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a 'fascist'.

Anabobazina said:

kamski said:

darkage said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Wow

Poland suspends the right of asylum

"Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
@donaldtusk
in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

"I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

"🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.

Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended

So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely

So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.

The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet

Sure, sure.

That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.

Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?

Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

"The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
@GuyChazan
⁩ ⁦
⁩ ⁦
@FT"

https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


effectively
/ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
adverb
1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
"make sure that resources are used effectively"

2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
"they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"

What is suggests to me is that Germany has watered down Schengen. I can see why the professor is annoyed - it looks a bit slippery slopeish and not done. But a de facto suspension sounds like hyperbole to me.

The big thing with Schengen is the ability just to walk, cycle or drive over the border with nothing but a “welcome to country x” sign. I love it - one of the joys of European travel. Especially wonderful on the high Alpine passes, or on the Riviera where one second you’re in France, then it’s Monaco then mamma Mia you’re in Italy.

Switzerland, while a member, does rather spoil the effect by having erected lots of customs infrastructure and waving you over into a lane for inspection if they think you’re carrying contraband, or haven’t got your motorway tag for the year.

Yes - it feels more like an evolution of schengen rather than its destruction. The reintroduction of border controls has been going on since pre covid years.

Yes there have been so-called reintroductions of border controls between loads of Schengen countries going on for decades already. Leon only heard about it the other day so think it's something world-shatteringly new, and he also confuses Schengen repeatedly with Freedom of Movement, which is an entirely different thing.

France “suspends” Schengen on a regular basis whenever she feels like it. She did so for the Olympics and in theory might still be doing so. In reality, you just drive through while throwing an ironic bird to the ‘border guard’ who is more interested in his lunch.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.

I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?

You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?

WildernessPt2 said:

Barnesian said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.

I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.

Why would that encourage some kind of terrorism? Are we now going to clear our throats look to the ground and mumble, "achulley Taylor Swift was not in fact targeted by islamic extremist but mostly at risk because of someone tweeting he didn't like her/her music".

WildernessPt2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?

You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?

Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.

Barnesian said:

WildernessPt2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrankBooth said:

rottenborough said:

Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?

You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?

Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.

Sad