A united Ireland, a matter when not if? – politicalbetting.com

System · June 10

A united Ireland, a matter when not if? – politicalbetting.com

Support for reunification in Northern Ireland is the highest on record, according to the Northern Ireland Life & Times Survey.Remain part of the UK: 45% (-28 since 2010)Reunify with Ireland: 32% (+16)Don't know: 14% (+8)Independence: 7% (+4)

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

In the fullness of time although in the short term, for some voters independence has the same NOTA role fulfilled on the mainland by Reform.

DavidL · June 10

I think the bigger problem may be persuading those south of the border that they want it.

MarqueeMark · June 10

This is Ireland. How many hundred years are you talking?

RochdalePioneers · June 10

DavidL said:
I think the bigger problem may be persuading those south of the border that they want it.

Specifically persuading them that they want to *pay* for it

Fishing · June 10

Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.

Sean_F · June 10

Independence has always been a hardline loyalist position. No nationalist would support it.

DavidL · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:
I think the bigger problem may be persuading those south of the border that they want it.
Specifically persuading them that they want to *pay* for it

Yep, the Germans very willingly took on the task of rebuilding east Germany but they were able to do so from a position of great economic strength. Not sure Eire is quite in that boat.

TheValiant · June 10

7% want independence?

I'm sure it was someone on here, possibly RCS, who said an independent Northern Ireland is totally economically unviable - it'd just become a failed state.

(Now, an 'independent' Northern Ireland in the EU was believed to be manageable, but whether that is possible is another thing).

Foxy · June 10

DavidL said:
I think the bigger problem may be persuading those south of the border that they want it.

I think it would require a degree of devolution within Ireland and would change the nature of the existing state, but if Northern Ireland did vote for unification it would be hard to refuse.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

The tragic tale of Rhianan Rudd, the UK’s youngest female terror suspect
A British schoolgirl was groomed and radicalised by an American white supremacist – and failed by those who were supposed to protect her

In the autumn of 2020, Rhianan Rudd gouged a swastika into her forehead in a declaration of her love for Adolf Hitler.

She had just turned 15. A little more than a year later, she killed herself in a children’s home in Nottinghamshire while in the care of her local authority.

... Hers was a disturbing and disturbed life; a life which presents a chilling insight into the ease with which a teenager can be sucked into the hate-filled world of white supremacists.

By the time of her death at the age of 16, Rhianan was an adherent of two far-Right terror groups: the Atomwaffen Division and the Order of Nine Angles, a bizarre neo-Nazi satanist cult. The youngest girl in the UK ever to be charged with terrorist offences, she had planned to build a bomb and blow up a synagogue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/25/rhianan-rudd-british-female-terror-suspect/ (£££)

See also the grooming of Shemima Begum, a less sympathetic figure, and also the Prevent guidelines on the far right that some have been railing against in the last day or two.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.

Morris_Dancer · June 10

Good morning, everyone.

Some say if you listen to the Undercutters podcast you'll have a wonderful day and be 17% more attractive for the entire week*.

Ep24 previews Canada, how the season stands heading into it, plus the possibility Stroll might not race.

Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-canadian-grand-prix-preview/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-canadian-grand-prix-preview/id1786574257?i=1000712209658

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3P8qgVM0W9m7SSMmXeElIH

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/88600e67-df89-4c57-992b-be43a5a92fae/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-canadian-grand-prix-preview

Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/06/f1-2025-canadian-grand-prix-preview.html

*This is in no way legally binding.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.

Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?

Luckyguy1983 · June 10

They could unite as part of the UK.

DavidL · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.

I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.

Leon · June 10

Ireland is convulsed by its own migrant crisis. Ulster won’t be far behind - see the riots in Ballymena yesterday

Think these will supersede any thoughts of “reunification”

TheScreamingEagles · June 10

Luckyguy1983 said:
They could unite as part of the UK.

It's already been tried, it wasn't a success.

another_richard · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.

Perhaps California should stop encouraging criminality if it wants to avoid federal intervention.

Leon · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?

You voted for Brexit

JosiasJessop · June 10

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The tragic tale of Rhianan Rudd, the UK’s youngest female terror suspect
A British schoolgirl was groomed and radicalised by an American white supremacist – and failed by those who were supposed to protect her

In the autumn of 2020, Rhianan Rudd gouged a swastika into her forehead in a declaration of her love for Adolf Hitler.

She had just turned 15. A little more than a year later, she killed herself in a children’s home in Nottinghamshire while in the care of her local authority.

... Hers was a disturbing and disturbed life; a life which presents a chilling insight into the ease with which a teenager can be sucked into the hate-filled world of white supremacists.

By the time of her death at the age of 16, Rhianan was an adherent of two far-Right terror groups: the Atomwaffen Division and the Order of Nine Angles, a bizarre neo-Nazi satanist cult. The youngest girl in the UK ever to be charged with terrorist offences, she had planned to build a bomb and blow up a synagogue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/25/rhianan-rudd-british-female-terror-suspect/ (£££)

See also the grooming of Shemima Begum, a less sympathetic figure, and also the Prevent guidelines on the far right that some have been railing against in the last day or two.

From that synopsis, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the authorities 'failed' her: in reality there was probably little they could do to someone who was evidently rather broken quite early in life. I'm guessing the family and upbringing are much more responsible? (*)

I can't read the article: what would the article's writers have done differently?

(*) This might well be wrong...

wooliedyed · June 10

Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though

MattW · June 10

LA: US policeman shoots a very obvious Channel 9 TV reporter with a rubber bullet, from a few m away. Welcome to Venezuela.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/lauren-tomasi-shot-in-los-angeles-protests-anthony-albanese-responds/428fdfbe-4358-4ba0-8414-40cc4e0254dd

SandyRentool · June 10

Good morning. Some good news to start the day. BBC:

"World fertility rates in 'unprecedented decline', UN says"

Dura_Ace · June 10

Tiocfaidh ar la.

It probably needs a massive political and/or economic crisis in the rump state of England, Wales and the Isle of Wight to trigger it in the next couple of decades though. So here's hoping.

Nigelb · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.

The deployment of troops in this case has no basis in law.
The earlier examples did.

It's not complicated.

Nigelb · June 10

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.

What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?

carnforth · June 10

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit

Did he tell the Lib Dem selectors?

SandyRentool · June 10

At the moment we have Schrodinger's Ulster. You don't know if it is Britain or Ireland until you open the pub door.

another_richard · June 10

Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:
They could unite as part of the UK.
It's already been tried, it wasn't a success.

It lasted longer than Germany, to be fair.

Taz · June 10

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though

Who will go first though, Reeves or Cooper 🤔

RochdalePioneers · June 10

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.

That wasn't the argument you were attempting to make. Eisenhower sending in the troops to enforce a court order integrating a school is not remotely a precedent for this. Which court order has Newsome broken? Whereas the ICE are now operating explicitly *against* court orders.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

Taz said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Who will go first though, Reeves or Cooper 🤔

Dead-heat as part of a wider Cabinet reshuffle.

Dura_Ace · June 10

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns

It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

wooliedyed · June 10

Taz said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Who will go first though, Reeves or Cooper 🤔

He cant get rid of Reeves immeduately after allowing her to do a spending review without totally invalidating it

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit

What does Brexit have to do with it? The issue is what successive Tory MPs did *after* Brexit. Had we become Norway or Iceland or Switzerland - none of whom are in the EU - the we would have had no issues in Ireland or anywhere else.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though

Labour are making a massive mistake here. We can't afford law and order now? Tories broke it, someone needs to fix it, this costs money. Guess what - leaving it broken costs MORE money.

Why are this generation of politicians so stupid? Does an underfunded police and criminal justice system mean less crime? Or more crime? We know it's the latter and crime costs money.

Leon · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
What does Brexit have to do with it? The issue is what successive Tory MPs did *after* Brexit. Had we become Norway or Iceland or Switzerland - none of whom are in the EU - the we would have had no issues in Ireland or anywhere else.

You literally mention Brexit in your comment

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

SandyRentool said:
At the moment we have Schrodinger's Ulster. You don't know if it is Britain or Ireland until you open the pub door.

Or kitchen door. Here's Jimmy Carr discovering sectarian differences while touring Ireland. Language NSFW. Video less than 2 minutes.

Where do you keep your toaster?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rJxC6QppdP4

malcolmg · June 10

Taz said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Who will go first though, Reeves or Cooper 🤔

Toss up as to who is the thickest, both should be dumped. Their only saving grace is Milliband.

TheScreamingEagles · June 10

Amid more reshuffle talk, how Patrick McLoughlin responded when given aviation & shipping at DfT

“There are 2 problems with that: I’ve got the most land-locked constituency in the UK & I’m afraid of flying”

Cecil Parkinson: “Excellent- you’ll bring an open mind to this subject”

https://x.com/JAHeale/status/1932122684189782239

In early 2018, PM Theresa May called me in to make me transport minister.

I replied:
🚘I couldn’t drive
🚲 I couldn’t ride a bike
✈️ Worst, I was one of 4 Government Ministers given a derogation to oppose Government policy on Heathrow expansion - her flagship transport policy!

Having explained these matters, the PM’s conclusion was

“Thank you, Greg. I would like you to remain at the Department for International Trade.”

The key thing in reshuffles is to be ready for any mad suggestions. Fortunately, on this occasion, the Whips Office tipped me off.

https://x.com/GregHands/status/1932323602080407571

wooliedyed · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Labour are making a massive mistake here. We can't afford law and order now? Tories broke it, someone needs to fix it, this costs money. Guess what - leaving it broken costs MORE money.

Why are this generation of politicians so stupid? Does an underfunded police and criminal justice system mean less crime? Or more crime? We know it's the latter and crime costs money.

Labour arent very good, therefore they are prone to doing stupid things. And we pay

Eabhal · June 10

Funny reading about Sizewell C and the town council complaining that the 10,000 well paid jobs will mean it's harder for local businesses to get staff.

I had a similar experience in my home town - efforts to make the High Street a bit more attracting by widening pavements and allowing cafes to put tables out, cycle paths out to the new estates etc are always met with opposition by local businesses. And then the cash just goes somewhere else...

boulay · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

Waiting for Charlton Heston and his cold dead hands to rise from the dead and lead them against the Tyrant.

Nigelb · June 10

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
The deployment of troops in this case has no basis in law.
The earlier examples did.

It's not complicated.

Eisenhower, of course, specifically invoked the insurrection clauses of Chapter 15, Title 10 of the federal code.
After a Supreme Court decision was defied by the state governor.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-10730

Trump has not done that.
And has no such basis to do so anyway.

another_richard · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

Guns are the opposite of taxes.

Guns are for 'people like me', taxes are for 'people like you'.

Stuartinromford · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

In government, getting what they want.

So by definition, there can't be overreach.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
What does Brexit have to do with it? The issue is what successive Tory MPs did *after* Brexit. Had we become Norway or Iceland or Switzerland - none of whom are in the EU - the we would have had no issues in Ireland or anywhere else.
You literally mention Brexit in your comment

Brexit is leaving the European Union. Norway isn't in the EU. Iceland isn't in the EU. Having the same status as them - and thus completing Brexit - would have left the Irish border operating without major issues.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

wooliedyed said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Labour are making a massive mistake here. We can't afford law and order now? Tories broke it, someone needs to fix it, this costs money. Guess what - leaving it broken costs MORE money.

Why are this generation of politicians so stupid? Does an underfunded police and criminal justice system mean less crime? Or more crime? We know it's the latter and crime costs money.
Labour arent very good, therefore they are prone to doing stupid things. And we pay

The Tories aren't very good and did a lot of stupid things which we are now paying for.

LabCon - a waste of time flipping between them.

Scott_xP · June 10

...

algarkirk · June 10

What about a swap? NI to be the 51st state of the USA, then to become the 50th by California joining Canada in the UK of GB, C and C.

BTW, the best solution by far, though tragically impossible, is a United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain to be called the United Kingdom of the Irish and British Isles, with parliament alternating annually between London and Dublin. Dissolve the NI problem by enlarging, not splitting.

eek · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:
Morning all.
The Telegraph is having fun this morning placing Yvette on resignation watch after Rachel refused to buy her any new rozzers. I very much doubt she has the you know what though. All not well in paradise though
Labour are making a massive mistake here. We can't afford law and order now? Tories broke it, someone needs to fix it, this costs money. Guess what - leaving it broken costs MORE money.

Why are this generation of politicians so stupid? Does an underfunded police and criminal justice system mean less crime? Or more crime? We know it's the latter and crime costs money.

I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in a Government.

They don't seem to know what they want to achieve and equally don't know how to do anything properly.

Everyone on here will know how I would have sorted out tax. but then the other half is spending and you can't police the country on the goodwill of police officers - it costs money.

SandyRentool · June 10

Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?

Scott_xP · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

Cosplaying ICE agents

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.

DavidL · June 10

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.
What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?

His position, AIUI, is that California is deliberately impeding the work of ICE agents seeking to enforce Federal immigration laws there by creating "sanctuaries". The historical analogy most apposite was the use of Federal power to recover escaped slaves and the infamous Dred Scott decision which did much to trigger the Civil war, possibly the last time the US Supreme Court was so out of control.

In the present another frankly mad SC decision on May 30th let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.

It was an appalling decision allowing people to be extradited before their rights are determined by the courts but many in the southern States felt the same about Brown v Board of Education which led to the Little Rock crisis. The ICE officers are seeking to enforce the law as determined by the SC.

Eabhal · June 10

SandyRentool said:
Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?

Because it's 25 years until 2050 and even after that the UK expects to use gas to support the grid when required, even if we achieve Net Zero. Hopefully he'll announce a big expansion in gas storage too, to even out the price of gas in the winter.

Roger · June 10

Great seeing so many young Irish on the Cote d'azur working and speaking fluent French. I can't imagine it'll take long before those in the North want some of it if they don't already have it with dual nationality

TOPPING · June 10

Yes. At some point. Thing is, the status quo bias is pretty strong, and people are sort of happy with the current situation, rather than full blown integration.

The economics look dreadful, and as it stands it is not a bad compromise. The nationalists retain their cause without actually having to implement it, plus they can point to successive actions by HMG which provide them concessions so for all the world the North looks and feels to be an ever more closely integrated unit with the South, while the Unionists can take comfort in the fact that it hasn't happened yet.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

algarkirk said:
What about a swap? NI to be the 51st state of the USA, then to become the 50th by California joining Canada in the UK of GB, C and C.

BTW, the best solution by far, though tragically impossible, is a United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain to be called the United Kingdom of the Irish and British Isles, with parliament alternating annually between London and Dublin. Dissolve the NI problem by enlarging, not splitting.

That is to return to the 19th Century when Ireland did used to be part of the United Kingdom. It did not end well but lasted more than a hundred years.

Battlebus · June 10

Some background to partition and why reunification might not be *allowed* to happen. The DUC are merely Westminster's plaything.

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/harland-and-wolff-and-the-partition-of-ulster.html

carnforth · June 10

Roger said:
Great seeing so many young Irish on the Cote d'azur working and speaking fluent French. I can't imagine it'll take long before those in the North want some of it if they don't already have it.

They're already entitled to take Irish citizenship if they want it. So I'm not sure what your point is.

TOPPING · June 10

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.

Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Scott_xP said:

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?
Cosplaying ICE agents

This is next. The twats who insist their tiny penis isn't safe from gubbermint violation without an AR15 are cheering on the gubbermint smashing its way all over states rights because they are smashing the Enemies of Murica - Liberals, Latinos and Uppity Women.

They are against the government until they are in favour of it. Look at the government men smashing their way into churches and courtrooms to abduct people without charge - aren't they beautiful? Well I assume they are beautiful under their black fatigues and masks - see how they cosplay real Patriot Muricans in this way?

Black Shirted shock troops is the hallmark of any fascist dictator. And we know that Trump loves the Good Ol Boys who stood up for him in the Capitol. Why not just merge the two and have Trump Guardians and their AR15s and their small penises stationed in every woke city to shoot anyone who looks funny?

It's the American way.

Roger · June 10

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit

I'd sue him for defamation

Sean_F · June 10

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.
What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?
His position, AIUI, is that California is deliberately impeding the work of ICE agents seeking to enforce Federal immigration laws there by creating "sanctuaries". The historical analogy most apposite was the use of Federal power to recover escaped slaves and the infamous Dred Scott decision which did much to trigger the Civil war, possibly the last time the US Supreme Court was so out of control.

In the present another frankly mad SC decision on May 30th let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.

It was an appalling decision allowing people to be extradited before their rights are determined by the courts but many in the southern States felt the same about Brown v Board of Education which led to the Little Rock crisis. The ICE officers are seeking to enforce the law as determined by the SC.

Creating “sanctuaries” was perhaps the single most stupid decision, taken by left wing Democrats.

LostPassword · June 10

DavidL said:
I think the bigger problem may be persuading those south of the border that they want it.

Any vote for reunification will pass by a wider margin in the Republic than in the North.

But we're a long way from any vote. And TSE's chart shows that the trend can change direction.

Scott_xP · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:
Why not just merge the two and have Trump Guardians and their AR15s and their small penises stationed in every woke city to shoot anyone who looks funny?

It's the American way.

Only a matter of time...

Roger · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

OT. I owe you a thank you After you wrote about a classic motorbike you'd bought I took my old DAX which I havent driven for twenty five years to a garage and discobered it was worth four times what it cost so I sold it.

RochdalePioneers · June 10

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.

Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!

RochdalePioneers · June 10

Roger said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
I'd sue him for defamation

Why? I DID vote for Brexit. And like most of the people who complain about Brexit after the event, I didn't vote for the mess that was created *after* Brexit. I remain fine with not being in the EU. Not being in the EEA / CU? Madness with no mandate other than the 2019 election which is already a long way into the politically distant past.

SandyRentool · June 10

Eabhal said:

SandyRentool said:
Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?
Because it's 25 years until 2050 and even after that the UK expects to use gas to support the grid when required, even if we achieve Net Zero. Hopefully he'll announce a big expansion in gas storage too, to even out the price of gas in the winter.

You are misrepresenting the purpose of these projects. They are part of the chosen pathway to reach new zero and, in the case of the CCGTs with CCS, the 95% grid decarbonisation target by 2030.

Other pathways are possible that do not lock in future demand for natural gas (from Qatar!), but have been rejected.

Dura_Ace · June 10

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?
OT. I owe you a thank you After you wrote about a classic motorbike you'd bought I took my old DAX which I havent driven for twenty five years to a garage and discobered it was worth four times what it cost so I sold it.

It's called a Dax because it apparently resembles a dachshund to the eye of a Japanese marketing professional. I crashed my brains out on one when I was 11.

Sean_F · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!

What I’ve realised is that many Conservative MP’s and apparatchiks don’t think more than 6-12 months ahead, and will clutch at any short term solution.

This party has to be put out of its misery.

Mexicanpete · June 10

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.

He needs to make some BIG promises to overcome the Faragedozer.

Farage getting quite an outing here in Wales for reopening all the Welsh superpits and both Port Talbot blast furnaces yesterday.

It was a busy day and the Welsh broadcast media are grateful for his service.

Beat that Boris!

JosiasJessop · June 10

Eabhal said:

SandyRentool said:
Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?
Because it's 25 years until 2050 and even after that the UK expects to use gas to support the grid when required, even if we achieve Net Zero. Hopefully he'll announce a big expansion in gas storage too, to even out the price of gas in the winter.

The planned lifespan of a CCGT is 25 to 30 years, and many were built in the 1990s. They can be kept running if older, but that gets increasingly expensive. The owners of a CCGT near me are in that position, and have asked the government for permission to build a new plant at the site. Up to now, the answer has been no.

Until we get many more renewables, and orders of magnitude more storage, I cannot see an option other than building new CCGT (often replacing existing ones).

And in related news:
"Sizewell C nuclear plant gets go-ahead with £14.2bn of government funding"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3v50qy35pwt

williamglenn · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

Roger said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
I'd sue him for defamation
Why? I DID vote for Brexit. And like most of the people who complain about Brexit after the event, I didn't vote for the mess that was created *after* Brexit. I remain fine with not being in the EU. Not being in the EEA / CU? Madness with no mandate other than the 2019 election which is already a long way into the politically distant past.

Not being in the EEA / CU was also a 2024 manifesto commitment from Labour.

MarqueeMark · June 10

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Some say if you listen to the Undercutters podcast you'll have a wonderful day and be 17% more attractive for the entire week*.

*This is in no way legally binding.

Works for Trump though.

"I will cut your grocery bills, reduce inflation, end the Ukraine war - all in my first 24 hours. If you believe enough to vote for me..."

Eabhal · June 10

Dura_Ace said:

another_richard said:
Contrasting visions of the two political wings in the USA:

Left - Trans, abortion, illegal immigrants
Right - Jesus, babies, guns
It's always been an abiding principle of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists that they need firearms to protect themselves against authoritarian overreach by the government. Well, where the fuck are they now?

It's "Don't tread on me", not "us".

RochdalePioneers · June 10

williamglenn said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Roger said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
I'd sue him for defamation
Why? I DID vote for Brexit. And like most of the people who complain about Brexit after the event, I didn't vote for the mess that was created *after* Brexit. I remain fine with not being in the EU. Not being in the EEA / CU? Madness with no mandate other than the 2019 election which is already a long way into the politically distant past.
Not being in the EEA / CU was also a 2024 manifesto commitment from Labour.

Indeed. Part of the reason why I now describe the parties as LabCon. Practically indistinguishable from each other

Morris_Dancer · June 10

MarqueeMark said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Some say if you listen to the Undercutters podcast you'll have a wonderful day and be 17% more attractive for the entire week*.

*This is in no way legally binding.
Works for Trump though.

"I will cut your grocery bills, reduce inflation, end the Ukraine war - all in my first 24 hours. If you believe enough to vote for me..."

Ha, well, if you listen to the podcast I guess it works for me too.

StillWaters · June 10

Just with reference to the last thread, I’d note that California technically belongs to the Crown (same relationship as the Channel Islands I believe - not part of the UK).

So perhaps they should go for UDI and have the King as their head of state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake's_Plate_of_Brass

Mexicanpete · June 10

williamglenn said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Roger said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit
I'd sue him for defamation
Why? I DID vote for Brexit. And like most of the people who complain about Brexit after the event, I didn't vote for the mess that was created *after* Brexit. I remain fine with not being in the EU. Not being in the EEA / CU? Madness with no mandate other than the 2019 election which is already a long way into the politically distant past.
Not being in the EEA / CU was also a 2024 manifesto commitment from Labour.

Considering the PB glitterati are so critical of Labour's performance in Government this is surely just another abject failure for you to add to the list. On this issue, I wouldn't disagree.

kjh · June 10

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:
Great. The sooner they are gone the better. 3p off income tax if we don't have to prop it up for starters. Also we can revisit the stupider provisions of the Windsor framework that exist mainly because of Ulster.

One of the biggest opportunities we missed when we left the EU was getting rid of the economic and diplomatic blight that is Northern Ireland.

Of course the current government would doubtless insist on paying trillions to the Republic to take it, but hopefully we'd have a more competent one in power by then.
Morning love! You used the word “stupider” against other people. The infra-Irish border was cited as an obvious place that the WE ARE ENGLAND DO WHAT WE SAY plan for Brexit fell apart.

Stupid are the people who insisted it wasn’t a problem, not our responsibility, just ignore it, belittle it - or as we saw with that wazzock Boris Johnson not understand it and lie about it.

Who is worse? The idiot savant who lies his way out of trouble? Or the idiots who think he is a genius?
You voted for Brexit

You voted for Labour.

JosiasJessop · June 10

SandyRentool said:

Eabhal said:

SandyRentool said:
Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?
Because it's 25 years until 2050 and even after that the UK expects to use gas to support the grid when required, even if we achieve Net Zero. Hopefully he'll announce a big expansion in gas storage too, to even out the price of gas in the winter.
You are misrepresenting the purpose of these projects. They are part of the chosen pathway to reach new zero and, in the case of the CCGTs with CCS, the 95% grid decarbonisation target by 2030.

Other pathways are possible that do not lock in future demand for natural gas (from Qatar!), but have been rejected.

The CCGT's with CCS will achieve nothing but pump billions into the pockets of the people proposing the systems...

TOPPING · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!

Nearly. Had a plan about levelling up, you name it, then COVID. So everything changed. We can speculate about what he would have been like under BAU conditions, but he was manifestly unfit to be a crisis leader. But crisis and fiscal near-extinction event there most certainly was. Under Lab and the LDs I think we would still be locked down. Just in case and to save the NHS.

JosiasJessop · June 10

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!

"Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government."

Defending Boris slightly, I think that's unfair. He won the GE in December 2019, and had only three months before the Covid nightmare derailed his government - as it derailed every government. He definitely had a plan; we will never know whether that plan would have worked, as he had virtually no time to deliver it.

MattW · June 10

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
The tragic tale of Rhianan Rudd, the UK’s youngest female terror suspect
A British schoolgirl was groomed and radicalised by an American white supremacist – and failed by those who were supposed to protect her

In the autumn of 2020, Rhianan Rudd gouged a swastika into her forehead in a declaration of her love for Adolf Hitler.

She had just turned 15. A little more than a year later, she killed herself in a children’s home in Nottinghamshire while in the care of her local authority.

... Hers was a disturbing and disturbed life; a life which presents a chilling insight into the ease with which a teenager can be sucked into the hate-filled world of white supremacists.

By the time of her death at the age of 16, Rhianan was an adherent of two far-Right terror groups: the Atomwaffen Division and the Order of Nine Angles, a bizarre neo-Nazi satanist cult. The youngest girl in the UK ever to be charged with terrorist offences, she had planned to build a bomb and blow up a synagogue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/25/rhianan-rudd-british-female-terror-suspect/ (£££)

See also the grooming of Shemima Begum, a less sympathetic figure, and also the Prevent guidelines on the far right that some have been railing against in the last day or two.
From that synopsis, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the authorities 'failed' her: in reality there was probably little they could do to someone who was evidently rather broken quite early in life. I'm guessing the family and upbringing are much more responsible? (*)

I can't read the article: what would the article's writers have done differently?

(*) This might well be wrong...

The authorities eg Prevent intervened quickly. The genesis was in a broken marriage, then her mother getting into a "prison penfriend" scheme with a neo-Nazi in a US prison, and him or an associate eventually ended up coming to the UK and groomed her daughter. There are a couple of neo-Nazis involved, and other aspects. Social media involved. One of the blokes from the USA has taken up with one of mum's friends who was contributing to the care for the daughter, and is now abroad with him - defending him to the Telegraph.

(AFAICS it was in Bolsover and Chesterfield - so Derby CC as service provider, and only the referral children's home was Notts - so strange geography from the Telegraph.)

So mum was naive, it's about unwise contact with prisoners, consequences / bounce back from broken relationships, social media, complexity of cases, and perhaps availability of resources for services to catch things early.

It's a bizarre story.

Eabhal · June 10

JosiasJessop said:

Eabhal said:

SandyRentool said:
Ed Miliband: "...we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels."

So why is Ed funding new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants that will consume natural gas for decades to come?
Because it's 25 years until 2050 and even after that the UK expects to use gas to support the grid when required, even if we achieve Net Zero. Hopefully he'll announce a big expansion in gas storage too, to even out the price of gas in the winter.
The planned lifespan of a CCGT is 25 to 30 years, and many were built in the 1990s. They can be kept running if older, but that gets increasingly expensive. The owners of a CCGT near me are in that position, and have asked the government for permission to build a new plant at the site. Up to now, the answer has been no.

Until we get many more renewables, and orders of magnitude more storage, I cannot see an option other than building new CCGT (often replacing existing ones).

And in related news:
"Sizewell C nuclear plant gets go-ahead with £14.2bn of government funding"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3v50qy35pwt

I think it's perfectly sensible, though I'm interested in what kind of contract the government will go for. Our gas generation had collapsed (currently at 2GW lol), so these new stations are only viable if they are able to charge very high prices to cover what small amounts of energy they do provide.

How do we take into account new interconnectors? We're currently importing more from France than we are generating from gas.

algarkirk · June 10

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:
What about a swap? NI to be the 51st state of the USA, then to become the 50th by California joining Canada in the UK of GB, C and C.

BTW, the best solution by far, though tragically impossible, is a United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain to be called the United Kingdom of the Irish and British Isles, with parliament alternating annually between London and Dublin. Dissolve the NI problem by enlarging, not splitting.
That is to return to the 19th Century when Ireland did used to be part of the United Kingdom. It did not end well but lasted more than a hundred years.

Indeed. It is the history which makes it impossible, SFAICS. That was mostly an English imperial project, going back centuries. My suggestion is different, with Ireland and Britain being equals in the same way as the two islands of New Zealand. Looking at a map of the islands of the North Atlantic make it obvious geographically.

DavidL · June 10

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.
What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?
His position, AIUI, is that California is deliberately impeding the work of ICE agents seeking to enforce Federal immigration laws there by creating "sanctuaries". The historical analogy most apposite was the use of Federal power to recover escaped slaves and the infamous Dred Scott decision which did much to trigger the Civil war, possibly the last time the US Supreme Court was so out of control.

In the present another frankly mad SC decision on May 30th let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.

It was an appalling decision allowing people to be extradited before their rights are determined by the courts but many in the southern States felt the same about Brown v Board of Education which led to the Little Rock crisis. The ICE officers are seeking to enforce the law as determined by the SC.
Creating “sanctuaries” was perhaps the single most stupid decision, taken by left wing Democrats.

That’s a highly competitive field, I’d need to think about that one. Allowing Biden to remain President when clearly gaga is a contender with long term implications as Trump goes increasingly nuts. But yeah, when your principal critique is that Trump has a long record of breaking the law, joining in was not smart.

kinabalu · June 10

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
He needs to make some BIG promises to overcome the Faragedozer.

Farage getting quite an outing here in Wales for reopening all the Welsh superpits and both Port Talbot blast furnaces yesterday.

It was a busy day and the Welsh broadcast media are grateful for his service.

Beat that Boris!

He's going to Make Wales Great Again, isn't he, the little tinker.

BartholomewRoberts · June 10

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.
What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?
His position, AIUI, is that California is deliberately impeding the work of ICE agents seeking to enforce Federal immigration laws there by creating "sanctuaries". The historical analogy most apposite was the use of Federal power to recover escaped slaves and the infamous Dred Scott decision which did much to trigger the Civil war, possibly the last time the US Supreme Court was so out of control.

In the present another frankly mad SC decision on May 30th let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.

It was an appalling decision allowing people to be extradited before their rights are determined by the courts but many in the southern States felt the same about Brown v Board of Education which led to the Little Rock crisis. The ICE officers are seeking to enforce the law as determined by the SC.

Enforcing the law using the federal military goes the law, except for very limited exceptions.

Little Rock was covered by one of those exceptions. The law said that the military could be used to enforce civil rights laws and Little Rock was covered by that.

If the Insurrection Act is invoked, then its covered too.

The problem is that Trump isn't following the law, unlike Eisenhower.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 10

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!
"Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government."

Defending Boris slightly, I think that's unfair. He won the GE in December 2019, and had only three months before the Covid nightmare derailed his government - as it derailed every government. He definitely had a plan; we will never know whether that plan would have worked, as he had virtually no time to deliver it.

Boris had no plan. Dominic Cummings had a plan but made the crucial error of ridiculing the Prime Minister's love bunny which meant he had to go, taking his plan with him in his cardboard box.

bondegezou · June 10

Oh my God, they are so stupid: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/08/chemtrails-us-states-legislation 8 US states outlaw chemtrails.

kinabalu · June 10

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Why not just merge the two and have Trump Guardians and their AR15s and their small penises stationed in every woke city to shoot anyone who looks funny?

It's the American way.
Only a matter of time...

The way Trump is behaving here shows that fears about the sanctity of the midterms are far from paranoid.

Mexicanpete · June 10

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Boris Johnson's comeback? Why rumours of his return are growing | Political Currency Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPxGf6plvAo

Ten minutes of George Osborne and Ed Balls discussing the politics and logistics of Boris and Jenrick.
Senior Cameroon Tories are not dismissing it out of hand and acknowledging that he would likely pull the party together, while being popular with large parts of the electorate. More in sorrow than anger but it is on the table for discussion, if not quite implementation. Yet.
Boris Johnson returning to lead the Tories would be a glorious victory for anyone wanting to see the formerly Conservative and formerly Unionist Party finally reduced to rump status.

Tony Blair - a political titan of his age. Completely reshaped his party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after he stepped down.
Margaret Thatcher - a political titan of several ages. Completely reshaped her party and won three elections with two of them landslides. Not brought back as leader despite the decline after she stepped down.

Boris Johnson - the self-titled World King. Bolloxed up Brexit by accidentally winning it (crumbs!), reduced his party to a minority by sacking his own MPs as not being Conservative enough (including Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson - cripes!). Won an election with a chunky majority and then proceeded to not actually have a plan for what to do in government. Hounded out of office for one scandal too far.

If they bring him back then they truly are finished. Do it. DO IT!
Nearly. Had a plan about levelling up, you name it, then COVID. So everything changed. We can speculate about what he would have been like under BAU conditions, but he was manifestly unfit to be a crisis leader. But crisis and fiscal near-extinction event there most certainly was. Under Lab and the LDs I think we would still be locked down. Just in case and to save the NHS.

Anyone, who as Foreign Secretary (at a time of strained relations with Russia after Salisbury) shakes off his minders to attend a party in an Italian mansion complete with alcoholic drinks and hostesses (both being interests of said Foreign Secretary) and hosted by a Senior KGB Officer, has no business ever touching the levers of power again.

algarkirk · June 10

Nice example from the BBC about how for decades there has been worry about the human population. The worry has always been about either too many, or too few, and has gone from one to the other with amazing speed.

This is how news works, but it is impossible to believe there isn't also a middle ground of 'this is OK' which is completely unmentioned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynq459wxgo

Sean_F · June 10

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:
Can we go back to the Trump vs States Rights issue for a minute. Several people on the last thread arguing Trump is ok to do this because Eisenhower and Johnson did it.

There is a significant difference.

Those two presidents sent in troops over the heads of the state to protect people against the illegal racism in those states. To protect people against racist law enforcement beating them and worse.

In California Trump is sending in the racists to abduct and terrorise and beat them up and worse. He’s trying to claim that his ICE thugs are the law - but the courts keep ruling they are not.

If people want to support black-shirted SA cosplay thugs riding into town abducting people at random off the streets and now commuting violence against people’s first amendment rights then man up and say so openly.
I am not for one moment suggesting what Trump is doing is right or moral. I was merely pointing out that the argument for State rights was determined somewhat bloodily in 1865 and that there is nothing new in a President using Federal power to uphold the law in a State as they see it.
What's the legal basis for his action then, David ?
His position, AIUI, is that California is deliberately impeding the work of ICE agents seeking to enforce Federal immigration laws there by creating "sanctuaries". The historical analogy most apposite was the use of Federal power to recover escaped slaves and the infamous Dred Scott decision which did much to trigger the Civil war, possibly the last time the US Supreme Court was so out of control.

In the present another frankly mad SC decision on May 30th let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.

It was an appalling decision allowing people to be extradited before their rights are determined by the courts but many in the southern States felt the same about Brown v Board of Education which led to the Little Rock crisis. The ICE officers are seeking to enforce the law as determined by the SC.
Enforcing the law using the federal military goes the law, except for very limited exceptions.

Little Rock was covered by one of those exceptions. The law said that the military could be used to enforce civil rights laws and Little Rock was covered by that.

If the Insurrection Act is invoked, then its covered too.

The problem is that Trump isn't following the law, unlike Eisenhower.

SCOTUS will rule that he is.

“That which is pleasing to the Prince has the force of law.”

WhisperingOracle · June 10

Morning PB.

Bozo coming back.

Yes, that would be fitting for morally confused, compromised times.

It would send a clearer message to the world that Britain is still in a mess.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

A united Ireland, a matter when not if? – politicalbetting.com

Comments