Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump ends his first year in the White House with punters givi

2

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Does Diane fancy another go at the leadership?
    https://twitter.com/dianejamesmep/status/954304743219884032
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    JonathanD said:

    Boris once more proving how unserious he is. If we are looking for grand engineering projects there are plenty that could be done in the north of England and which would be far more beneficial for growth.


    "Can we have more money for the NHS". "No, sorry". "Can we have more money for our armed forces". "No". "Schools?". "Nope". "Police?". "Nope". "A massive bridge across the English Channel?". "Of course. Great idea". The Tories actually want to lose, don't they.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/954271477607686146

    Hold on - does Labour want Government-inspired large infrastructure projects or not?
    This bridge is the have your cake and eat it metaphor in shining steel.

    Boris has pulled us out of the EU, wants out of the single market and customs union so we can trade with rest of the world, wants minimal EU migration etc etc.

    Yet, he does want a bridge to France so that traffic can flow between the two countries.

    Are there actually two Boriss?
    It is absolutely bonkers, as you say - leave the EU while building literal bridges to it. But there you have it. Plus it would do something as opposed to digging holes and then filling them in again.

    Would, that said, mean a whole lot more furriners able and willing to come here but, as every Leaver stated categorically during the campaign, they are all for immigration.
    Probably the PM told he needed to build bridges with our EU partners and he misunderstood her!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Jonathan said:

    Thanks for everyone's kind words. Whilst such things are generally highly charged and political in nature, I make no political point. We will get through this.

    I hope that if any politicians or policy makers are tuning in to PB today that they take note that behind every stat, every story and every data point there is a real person. The choices you make, change lives. Politics is not a game.

    I was very sorry to hear your news. Having been through a similar experience with my beloved wife Jenny in 2014, I can truly empathise. Fingers crossed for you.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Whittingdale: social media levy should be used to help fund local reporters for courts, local government etc.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/decline-local-newspapers-bad-democracy-justice-google-facebook/

    Excellent idea. Local courts, local government etc is just not being reported anymore. Bad for democracy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: because the calendar needs another tedious street race, Vietnam may soon be joining F1 as a venue:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42686826
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002
    edited January 2018
    felix said:

    Newport Pagnell N. & Hanslope (Milton Keynes) result: CON: 53.0% (+15.3) LAB: 24.8% (+11.7) LDEM: 22.2% (+6.8) Conservative HOLD.

    And they took a seat off labour in Hulton (Bolton) last night
  • DavidL said:

    The Newhouse section is certainly an improvement but when you see the empty 3 lane motorway on the M6/M74 north of Manchester and south of Glasgow you really wonder about priorities. The lack of dual carriageway on the A1 south of Haddington to not much short of Newcastle is also absurd and a real drag on Scotland's economic growth.

    M6 north of Manchester empty?

    North of Wigan maybe, depending upon the time of day, but frequently you need to be north of Preston before all the congestion is gone. The link to Manchester from the M6 is the M62 or M56 at Warrington and that's a very, very congested stretch through to Haydock then Wigan.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    edited January 2018
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I put a little on Trump winning in 2020 yesterday with Wm Hills. It just seems about a 75% chance to me at the moment and the odds are generous. Of course he is more unpredictable and volatile than almost any leader so you never know what is going to happen but the economics are nailed on for him and that usually counts.

    Trump might easily win in 2020 but will he stand? Is he enjoying being president? Does he want to set up Ivanka as America's first woman president? Perhaps the answers are in the Wolff book, which I have bought but not yet read.
    Talking of books, I started Adults in the Room last night by Yanis Varoufakis. Really enjoying it. The first sentence sets the tone:
    "My previous book, "And the Weak Suffer What they Must?: Europe Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability", offered an historical explanation of why Europe is now in the process, decades in the making, of losing its integrity and forfeiting its soul."

    Maybe not one for WilliamGlenn but I would recommend to anyone else. What is interesting is that Varoufakis gets on very well with right winger politicians/economists in both the UK and US and agrees with their analysis, particularly about extend and pretend. He has complete contempt for EU bureaucrats, Junker in particular getting rough treatment.

    There was a good bit when he states: "George was among the first finance ministers I met after my election. The most startling aspect of that encounter -at least to those in the press who expected a frosty or outright acrimonious meeting- was that we found very little to disagree on. In the first few minutes of our discussion I suggested to him that, " While we may disagree on the merits of austerity, you are not doing much of it, George, are you?" He agreed smilingly...Osborne also seemed appreciative of the help he was getting from the Bank of England, which from the moment the City went through its 2008 convulsion had printed billions to refloat the banks and kept the economy "liquid". "

    He is a stylish and thought provoking writer enjoyable for both the left and the right.
    My friend at the IMF claims that there is a great deal in the book that is inaccurate, and that there is much - errrr - lying by omission. I have no reason to doubt her.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I'm using Google maps for my morning commute. It sends me in about one of ~ 20 slightly different routes to work each morning, the time estimation is very accurate too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,710
    edited January 2018
    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on Romney as the Republican candidate in 2020 ?
    I don't think he's running for the Senate just for fun.

    Low I would have thought, he would be running in Utah for Senate which is relatively anti Trump and where Cruz won the primary and which saw the biggest state swing to the Democrats in 2016, convincing Republican primary voters nationally to nominate him is a different matter especially as he won the nomination in 2012 helped by the fact the conservative vote was split between Santorum and Gingrich
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on Romney as the Republican candidate in 2020 ?
    I don't think he's running for the Senate just for fun.

    Low I would have thought, he would be running in Utah for Senate which is relatively anti Trump and where Cruz won the primary saw a swing to the Democrats in 2016, convincing Republican primary voters nationally to nominate him is a different matter especially as he won the nomination in 2012 as the conservative vote was split between Santorum and Gingrich
    I'm not sure.
    IF Trump goes down in flames, for whatever reason, then Pence is a far from automatic pick. And as we saw last time around, the Republicans don't have an overflowing bench of talent to call from.

    Just mulling what long odds might be interesting.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I'm using Google maps for my morning commute. It sends me in about one of ~ 20 slightly different routes to work each morning, the time estimation is very accurate too.

    Google Maps time estimate is creepily accurate. It gets slowdowns absolutely spot on most of the time even ones that are clearly temporary for just that day.

    My guess (and I know nothing either way) is that Google must collect a creepily large amount of realtime data from Android phones or something like that in order to generate its traffic flow information.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    JonathanD said:

    The Newhouse section is certainly an improvement but when you see the empty 3 lane motorway on the M6/M74 north of Manchester and south of Glasgow you really wonder about priorities. The lack of dual carriageway on the A1 south of Haddington to not much short of Newcastle is also absurd and a real drag on Scotland's economic growth.
    But the Scottish government prefer to give your middle class kids a “free” university education, rather than address the profound infrastructure and transport issues preventing growth in the economy.
    Its driven by independence. They want/need the quick wins and have done nothing for the long term. Ironically our economy is the most compelling reason why we will not become an independent country. But who wants to be a drag or the slow boy in the class? I really want us to get on and I agree with Alastair that there are opportunities.

    Serious question, what are the SCons' proposals for education, SNHS, infrastructure, Brexit, long term business & economic strategies etc? Apart from no second referendum and Ruth trumpeting a so far illusory influence on UK government policy, I haven't really seen anything.

    Of course that may be down to the notoriously pro SNP Scottish media hiding Ruth's meticulously constructed plan for government under a bushel.
    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    Does Diane fancy another go at the leadership?
    https://twitter.com/dianejamesmep/status/954304743219884032

    I hope she's joking.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,749

    JonathanD said:

    Boris once more proving how unserious he is. If we are looking for grand engineering projects there are plenty that could be done in the north of England and which would be far more beneficial for growth.


    "Can we have more money for the NHS". "No, sorry". "Can we have more money for our armed forces". "No". "Schools?". "Nope". "Police?". "Nope". "A massive bridge across the English Channel?". "Of course. Great idea". The Tories actually want to lose, don't they.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/954271477607686146

    The government would not be paying. It would be a private project like the Channel tunnel, or the Severn bridge.
    Probably with Hinkley Point style backing and guarantees from government?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm using Google maps for my morning commute. It sends me in about one of ~ 20 slightly different routes to work each morning, the time estimation is very accurate too.

    Google Maps time estimate is creepily accurate. It gets slowdowns absolutely spot on most of the time even ones that are clearly temporary for just that day.

    My guess (and I know nothing either way) is that Google must collect a creepily large amount of realtime data from Android phones or something like that in order to generate its traffic flow information.
    That’s exactly how it works, it knows the current speed of every car running the app and knows the speed limit of all the roads. It continues to evaluate the quickest way of getting from where you currently are to where you’re going, and will even re-route you around an unexpected slowdown that happens after your journey starts.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    The Newhouse section is certainly an improvement but when you see the empty 3 lane motorway on the M6/M74 north of Manchester and south of Glasgow you really wonder about priorities. The lack of dual carriageway on the A1 south of Haddington to not much short of Newcastle is also absurd and a real drag on Scotland's economic growth.

    M6 north of Manchester empty?

    North of Wigan maybe, depending upon the time of day, but frequently you need to be north of Preston before all the congestion is gone. The link to Manchester from the M6 is the M62 or M56 at Warrington and that's a very, very congested stretch through to Haydock then Wigan.
    Whenever I have been driving north I have always seen a huge difference once you are past the M62 junction. That may not always be the case but by the time you are in the Lake District you are often the only vehicle in sight on a 3 lane motorway.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Does Diane fancy another go at the leadership?
    https://twitter.com/dianejamesmep/status/954304743219884032

    Not a good strategy. Aidan Powlesland, the asteroid miner, has this segment of the vote sewn up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Talking of books, I started Adults in the Room last night by Yanis Varoufakis. Really enjoying it. The first sentence sets the tone:
    "My previous book, "And the Weak Suffer What they Must?: Europe Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability", offered an historical explanation of why Europe is now in the process, decades in the making, of losing its integrity and forfeiting its soul."

    Maybe not one for WilliamGlenn but I would recommend to anyone else. What is interesting is that Varoufakis gets on very well with right winger politicians/economists in both the UK and US and agrees with their analysis, particularly about extend and pretend. He has complete contempt for EU bureaucrats, Junker in particular getting rough treatment.

    There was a good bit when he states: "George was among the first finance ministers I met after my election. The most startling aspect of that encounter -at least to those in the press who expected a frosty or outright acrimonious meeting- was that we found very little to disagree on. In the first few minutes of our discussion I suggested to him that, " While we may disagree on the merits of austerity, you are not doing much of it, George, are you?" He agreed smilingly...Osborne also seemed appreciative of the help he was getting from the Bank of England, which from the moment the City went through its 2008 convulsion had printed billions to refloat the banks and kept the economy "liquid". "

    He is a stylish and thought provoking writer enjoyable for both the left and the right.
    My friend at the IMF claims that there is a great deal in the book that is inaccurate, and that there is much - errrr - lying by omission. I have no reason to doubt her.
    I'm not in a position to judge. He claims to have recorded many of his conversations. Of course he may not have reported all of them.

    I am only half way through but the critique of the IMF to date is that they allowed themselves to be drawn into loans to Greece used to pay off French and German banks without any haircut or any legitimate expectation that this was going to solve Greece's problems. I think that is unquestionably true. Of course the IMF may have looked at the consequences of the French and German banks going mammary glans up and thought that was the lesser evil. One way or another it is a good read.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Does Diane fancy another go at the leadership?
    https://twitter.com/dianejamesmep/status/954304743219884032

    I hope she's joking.
    Are you somehow implying that Star Trek's transporter beams aren't real?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Newhouse section is certainly an improvement but when you see the empty 3 lane motorway on the M6/M74 north of Manchester and south of Glasgow you really wonder about priorities. The lack of dual carriageway on the A1 south of Haddington to not much short of Newcastle is also absurd and a real drag on Scotland's economic growth.

    M6 north of Manchester empty?

    North of Wigan maybe, depending upon the time of day, but frequently you need to be north of Preston before all the congestion is gone. The link to Manchester from the M6 is the M62 or M56 at Warrington and that's a very, very congested stretch through to Haydock then Wigan.
    Whenever I have been driving north I have always seen a huge difference once you are past the M62 junction. That may not always be the case but by the time you are in the Lake District you are often the only vehicle in sight on a 3 lane motorway.
    For most of the day between the M62 and Haydock at least is very slow, upto Wigan too frequently. The stretches around here are getting upgraded to a smart motorway because the congestion is that bad. After Wigan it gets better unless its wet or there's been an accident in which case upto Preston can be very slow at rush hour.

    Once you get past Preston I completely agree. From Preston through to the Lake District and beyond is a ghost town. There's a big difference between Manchester and the Lakes though.
  • Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Talking of books, I started Adults in the Room last night by Yanis Varoufakis. Really enjoying it. The first sentence sets the tone:
    "My previous book, "And the Weak Suffer What they Must?: Europe Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability", offered an historical explanation of why Europe is now in the process, decades in the making, of losing its integrity and forfeiting its soul."

    Maybe not one for WilliamGlenn but I would recommend to anyone else. What is interesting is that Varoufakis gets on very well with right winger politicians/economists in both the UK and US and agrees with their analysis, particularly about extend and pretend. He has complete contempt for EU bureaucrats, Junker in particular getting rough treatment.

    There was a good bit when he states: "George was among the first finance ministers I met after my election. The most startling aspect of that encounter -at least to those in the press who expected a frosty or outright acrimonious meeting- was that we found very little to disagree on. In the first few minutes of our discussion I suggested to him that, " While we may disagree on the merits of austerity, you are not doing much of it, George, are you?" He agreed smilingly...Osborne also seemed appreciative of the help he was getting from the Bank of England, which from the moment the City went through its 2008 convulsion had printed billions to refloat the banks and kept the economy "liquid". "

    He is a stylish and thought provoking writer enjoyable for both the left and the right.
    My friend at the IMF claims that there is a great deal in the book that is inaccurate, and that there is much - errrr - lying by omission. I have no reason to doubt her.
    I'm not in a position to judge. He claims to have recorded many of his conversations. Of course he may not have reported all of them.

    I am only half way through but the critique of the IMF to date is that they allowed themselves to be drawn into loans to Greece used to pay off French and German banks without any haircut or any legitimate expectation that this was going to solve Greece's problems. I think that is unquestionably true. Of course the IMF may have looked at the consequences of the French and German banks going mammary glans up and thought that was the lesser evil. One way or another it is a good read.
    I think the bit she is incensed about is that the IMF offered to support Greece through Grexit, and Varoufakis has conveniently forgotten this in his accounts.
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm using Google maps for my morning commute. It sends me in about one of ~ 20 slightly different routes to work each morning, the time estimation is very accurate too.

    Google Maps time estimate is creepily accurate. It gets slowdowns absolutely spot on most of the time even ones that are clearly temporary for just that day.

    My guess (and I know nothing either way) is that Google must collect a creepily large amount of realtime data from Android phones or something like that in order to generate its traffic flow information.
    That’s exactly how it works, it knows the current speed of every car running the app and knows the speed limit of all the roads. It continues to evaluate the quickest way of getting from where you currently are to where you’re going, and will even re-route you around an unexpected slowdown that happens after your journey starts.
    I was expecting it to track everyone running the app, but I was wondering if it even tracks Android phones which aren't at that time running the app. Certainly my phone now even if I don't run the app detects that I'm driving, it would be possible to be sending on that data but not sure if they do or don't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,710
    edited January 2018
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on Romney as the Republican candidate in 2020 ?
    I don't think he's running for the Senate just for fun.

    Low I would have thought, he would be running in Utah for Senate which is relatively anti Trump and where Cruz won the primary saw a swing to the Democrats in 2016, convincing Republican primary voters nationally to nominate him is a different matter especially as he won the nomination in 2012 as the conservative vote was split between Santorum and Gingrich
    I'm not sure.
    IF Trump goes down in flames, for whatever reason, then Pence is a far from automatic pick. And as we saw last time around, the Republicans don't have an overflowing bench of talent to call from.

    Just mulling what long odds might be interesting.
    Whatever happens to Trump the vast majority of his 2016 primary voters would stick with him again in 2020 so unless he is impeached and forced from office or resigns he will the 2020 GOP nominee.

    In the unlikely event he goes Trump and Cruz 2016 GOP primary voters who will comprise the vast majority of 2020 GOP primary voters are more likely to go for Pence or Cruz than Romney
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited January 2018
    DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?

    Edit: I see it is hidden away on Trading Futures paper. Waffle about consulting with particular business sectors and that differentiated rules for Scotland would undermine the social union of the UK.
  • DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Everyone is talking about Boris. Job done.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    Blush. No I only skimmed the most recent one about education to be honest because it is an area I feel particularly strongly about having spent £200K of taxed income getting my kids through a decent school.

    Immigration is tricky. Scotland needs it but in a completely integrated single market with England how do we stop our immigrants ending up in London (along with too many of our own bright kids)?
    I think the idea of regional permissions should be looked at. If it looks like it will work for all parts of the UK then the number and class of immigrants is something Holyrood should decide.
  • Jonathan said:

    Thanks for everyone's kind words. Whilst such things are generally highly charged and political in nature, I make no political point. We will get through this.

    I hope that if any politicians or policy makers are tuning in to PB today that they take note that behind every stat, every story and every data point there is a real person. The choices you make, change lives. Politics is not a game.

    Sorry to hear about your father in law. I hope that they can find a bed soon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Scott_P said:
    It does have a Vettriano look doesn't it? In fairness to the Donald the others probably have hair that is more naturally attached to the scalp.
  • Jonathan said:

    Thanks for everyone's kind words. Whilst such things are generally highly charged and political in nature, I make no political point. We will get through this.

    I hope that if any politicians or policy makers are tuning in to PB today that they take note that behind every stat, every story and every data point there is a real person. The choices you make, change lives. Politics is not a game.

    Sorry to hear about your father in law. I hope that they can find a bed soon.
    Ditto.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm using Google maps for my morning commute. It sends me in about one of ~ 20 slightly different routes to work each morning, the time estimation is very accurate too.

    Google Maps time estimate is creepily accurate. It gets slowdowns absolutely spot on most of the time even ones that are clearly temporary for just that day.

    My guess (and I know nothing either way) is that Google must collect a creepily large amount of realtime data from Android phones or something like that in order to generate its traffic flow information.
    That’s exactly how it works, it knows the current speed of every car running the app and knows the speed limit of all the roads. It continues to evaluate the quickest way of getting from where you currently are to where you’re going, and will even re-route you around an unexpected slowdown that happens after your journey starts.
    I was expecting it to track everyone running the app, but I was wondering if it even tracks Android phones which aren't at that time running the app. Certainly my phone now even if I don't run the app detects that I'm driving, it would be possible to be sending on that data but not sure if they do or don't.
    Good luck getting an answer from Google on that one! What is certainly true is that phones have both a GPS receiver and a gyroscope, so they know where you are and how fast you’re moving even if you’ve not got a Nav app running.
  • Everyone is talking about Boris. Job done.

    And has Macron's approval
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
  • Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,749

    felix said:

    Newport Pagnell N. & Hanslope (Milton Keynes) result: CON: 53.0% (+15.3) LAB: 24.8% (+11.7) LDEM: 22.2% (+6.8) Conservative HOLD.

    And they took a seat off labour in Hulton (Bolton) last night
    Former UKIP voters with no-one else to turn to.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited January 2018

    DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002
    edited January 2018

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when I Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Its worse. She got the optics of writing a cheque for the French police to do their job in Calais.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    I usually think that Boris' political abilities are overstated, but I have to hand him this one.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

  • DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
  • DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I went to see The Darkest Hour last night and greatly enjoyed the film. An excellent portrayal of Churchill. I did feel,however, that there were serious historical inaccuracies which went beyond the fabricated London Underground scene. Halifax and Chamberlain were over-demonised. There was never a concerted effort to topple Churchill in the way suggested. Halifax certainly did wish to consider negotiations via Mussolini - but Chamberlain sat very much on the fence on the issue whilst Churchill received the firm support of the Labour War Cabinet members - Attlee & Greenwood.Churchill never forgot the support he received from his Labour colleagues at that crucial time, and Chamberlain eventually joined them in supporting him. Moreover, Chamberlain's cancer condition was not diagnosed until July 1940 and so lay in the future at the time of these events.
    Another inaccuracy related to Churchill's appointment as PM on May 10th 1940. He received the summons to the Palace at The Admiralty - not at Chartwell - and the succession to Chamberlain had been decided the day before at No 10. When asked by Chamberlain whether there was any problem with a Peer becoming PM , Churchill turned his back and simply remained silent - a silence which was only broken when Halifax himself spoke up to say that he did not think it appropriate in the circumstances for the PM to come from the House of Lords.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Well I suppose that those who think him an absolute pillock already will merely shrug, so in that respect you might be right.

    Doesn't change the fact that he's a massive numpty, though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    Did you ever do it without singing the Skye Boat song? Just impossible.
  • Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    I usually think that Boris' political abilities are overstated, but I have to hand him this one.
    To get it included as a joint project investigation with Macron's support in the summit declaration seems to have taken the wind out of the cynics sails
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Bridges are quite high-maintenance compared to tunnels. Apart from being more visible to vain politicians, is there anything going for them?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2018

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,710

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Boris is the anti May, charismatic, populist, unscrupulous and a man with big ideas. There is no way he should be trusted with the Brexit negotiations with the EU but as a leader at the next general election he is probably still the Tories best bet to beat Corbyn
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    Did you ever do it without singing the Skye Boat song? Just impossible.
    If was difficult not to - used to love going to Skye when we lived in Scotland
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    He's right about the secrecy. My only speculation is that he has received and is continuing to receive some chemical treatment to remove his libido. I can't see how else anyone could possibly conclude he was safe. If that is right then some of the public concern would be assuaged but he still wouldn't have served nearly long enough for his crimes. He should have been prosecuted again.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    A rolling betrayal? May will agree a soft Brexit, and Boris will say, "Sod this for a game of soldiers; we'd be better off staying."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited January 2018

    DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,710
    edited January 2018

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    A rolling betrayal? May will agree a soft Brexit, and Boris will say, "Sod this for a game of soldiers; we'd be better off staying."
    Boris would take over as leader post transition so the key principles of Brexit ie ending free movement and leaving the single market, would then be in place
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    HYUFD said:

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Boris is the anti May, charismatic, populist, unscrupulous and a man with big ideas. There is no way he should be trusted with the Brexit negotiations with the EU but as a leader at the next general election he is probably still the Tories best bet to beat Corbyn
    I tend to agree. They will need something special to beat Corbyn, as the tides of change are running in his direction.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Damn, after I had resisted too!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    I don't think any of the parties come out well from the Greek saga. This is mainly because their agendas were completely unaligned: the EU wanted to protect the rest of the Eurozone from a contagious Greek default; the IMF wanted to protect their investment in Greece; the Greek government wanted to screw as much money as possible out of other parties. Each party seems to have achieved their immediate objective, but none of them, including the Greeks themselves, had Greece's real interest at heart. As a result, the EU comes across as callous, the IMF as self-serving and the Greek governments as dishonest.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    DavidL said:

    He's right about the secrecy. My only speculation is that he has received and is continuing to receive some chemical treatment to remove his libido. I can't see how else anyone could possibly conclude he was safe. If that is right then some of the public concern would be assuaged but he still wouldn't have served nearly long enough for his crimes. He should have been prosecuted again.
    The only other treatment for him would be that favoured by the late Teresa Gorman MP.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    He's right about the secrecy. My only speculation is that he has received and is continuing to receive some chemical treatment to remove his libido. I can't see how else anyone could possibly conclude he was safe. If that is right then some of the public concern would be assuaged but he still wouldn't have served nearly long enough for his crimes. He should have been prosecuted again.
    A possibly very interesting point on which you speculate. The parole board need to be somewhat more transparent though, the need for privacy of the offender should be balanced against the public reputation of the justice system to be seen to be fair.

    I think the general public expect to see someone handed a life sentence put away for a couple of decades at a minimum.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    I was wondering how long before someone asked! :lol:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    justin124 said:

    I went to see The Darkest Hour last night and greatly enjoyed the film. An excellent portrayal of Churchill. I did feel,however, that there were serious historical inaccuracies which went beyond the fabricated London Underground scene. Halifax and Chamberlain were over-demonised. There was never a concerted effort to topple Churchill in the way suggested. Halifax certainly did wish to consider negotiations via Mussolini - but Chamberlain sat very much on the fence on the issue whilst Churchill received the firm support of the Labour War Cabinet members - Attlee & Greenwood.Churchill never forgot the support he received from his Labour colleagues at that crucial time, and Chamberlain eventually joined them in supporting him. Moreover, Chamberlain's cancer condition was not diagnosed until July 1940 and so lay in the future at the time of these events.
    Another inaccuracy related to Churchill's appointment as PM on May 10th 1940. He received the summons to the Palace at The Admiralty - not at Chartwell - and the succession to Chamberlain had been decided the day before at No 10. When asked by Chamberlain whether there was any problem with a Peer becoming PM , Churchill turned his back and simply remained silent - a silence which was only broken when Halifax himself spoke up to say that he did not think it appropriate in the circumstances for the PM to come from the House of Lords.

    The scene in the Commons where the opposition benches were loudly cheering him on whilst those behind him were largely silent was a demonstration of the support Labour gave him but I wondered if that was accurate too. Once Labour joined the unity government did their MPs still sit in the opposition benches?

    I do agree the film was harsh on Halifax.
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
    It is very impressive. Used old bridge last summer but will be using the new bridge on my two trips to the North East later this year
  • DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?

    Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.

    I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,710

    HYUFD said:

    Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    Boris is the anti May, charismatic, populist, unscrupulous and a man with big ideas. There is no way he should be trusted with the Brexit negotiations with the EU but as a leader at the next general election he is probably still the Tories best bet to beat Corbyn
    I tend to agree. They will need something special to beat Corbyn, as the tides of change are running in his direction.
    Though Corbyn is still short of a polling lead big enough for a working majority but yes Boris has charisma and a record of electoral success
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018
    I see that @GOsborneGenius, the artiste formerly known as tim of this parish, is not yet entirely reconciled to the takeover of the Labour party by a bunch of extremist, anti-EU, homeopathy-supporting, anti-Semitic, Lutfur Rahman-supporting, entryists.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2018
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
    The wiki article on the Skye bridge suggests that a lot of the locals had a somewhat informal ‘arrangement’ with those who worked on the ferries and they were regularly waved through, whereas when the bridge opened they were expected to pay the same as everyone else.

  • Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.

    Fair enough. I certainly think that would be a start, but I suspect Westminster's instinctive resistance to giving Holyrood/the SNP anything resembling the appurtenances of a state would put the kybosh on something like that.

    There's quite an interesting & balanced analysis of internal immigration from the Indy referendum period if you can be bothered reading further on the subject.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7rbp9bd
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
    The wiki article on the Skye bridge suggests that a lot of the locals had a somewhat informal ‘arrangement’ with those who worked on the ferries and they were regularly waved through, whereas when the bridge opened they were expected to pay the same as everyone else.
    I suspect that there may be some local legend in that, especially in relation to the German cars!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited January 2018
    John_M said:

    Jonathan said:

    Thanks for everyone's kind words. Whilst such things are generally highly charged and political in nature, I make no political point. We will get through this.

    I hope that if any politicians or policy makers are tuning in to PB today that they take note that behind every stat, every story and every data point there is a real person. The choices you make, change lives. Politics is not a game.

    I was very sorry to hear your news. Having been through a similar experience with my beloved wife Jenny in 2014, I can truly empathise. Fingers crossed for you.
    Thank-you for saying this. You have to deal with it, but it's really hard.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
    The wiki article on the Skye bridge suggests that a lot of the locals had a somewhat informal ‘arrangement’ with those who worked on the ferries and they were regularly waved through, whereas when the bridge opened they were expected to pay the same as everyone else.
    I heard this too. I think Skye people have a point on the principle. Other people use bridges built long ago, without a moment's thought and without paying a penny except through general taxation. Only the Skye Bridge was singled out and it was a hefty charge too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The real problem with the Skye Bridge is that Skye no longer feels an island.

    Mull, on the other hand, still blissfully requires a ferry to visit it. It's magial charm as one of the most beautiful islands on Earth remains intact.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

  • Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Macron apparently liked Boris's idea of a bridge over the channel and a joint agreement was published after the summit to convene a panel of experts to look at a range of projects to establish a fixed link (bridge or tunnel or combination of both)

    May be more to this than the flippant dismissal of Boris's comments and after all there are several very good long distance bridges and tunnels in use around the world.

    Mind you I doubt I will be driving across or through it in my lifetime

    Call me an old romantic, but I am against a bridge because I like the ferry.
    I used to say that when Iived in Edinburgh before the first road bridge at Queensferry
    My gran used to say that about getting the ferry over to Fife from Dundee. And I can't help feeling that Skye has lost just a little bit of its magic.

    I completely agree over the Skye bridge. It always seemed a bit magic to catch the ferry over the sea to Skye
    The problem with the Skye bridge is that it looks ugly. Maybe if they’d built a sexy suspension bridge there wouldn’t have been the protests around the tolls.
    The toll protests by people who had been paying for the ferry their entire lives were truly absurd. I did wonder if the winds in the sound played a part in the design but the Forth is also very windy and the new bridge there is beautiful.
    The wiki article on the Skye bridge suggests that a lot of the locals had a somewhat informal ‘arrangement’ with those who worked on the ferries and they were regularly waved through, whereas when the bridge opened they were expected to pay the same as everyone else.
    The Toll was very steep in comparison to other similar bridges from memory. Around 6 quid each way i think!

    This article from 2001 in the Guardian gives a decent idea of the project failures. It also reads very relevent given the current PFI debate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/aug/28/freedomofinformation.politicalcolumnists
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    Harsh on Theresa.
  • Boris has played an absolute blinder with his channel bridge. While he's striding the world stage like a colossus, discussing major infrastructure projects with presidents and kings, Theresa is stuck at home looking disconsolate and tired. I suspect Boris will wait until Theresa does something that can be spun as a 'Brexit betrayal' and then go in for the kill.

    A rolling betrayal? May will agree a soft Brexit, and Boris will say, "Sod this for a game of soldiers; we'd be better off staying."
    Yes, you might be right. I wouldn't put it past Boris to throw a curve ball like that. It would be a clever tactic, gaining him the approval of Remainers (who would seen him as a repented sinner) and Leavers (who would see him as a man of principle, unable to see Brexit sullied by fudge and compromise). It would also be impossible for Theresa to rebut.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited January 2018

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    Harsh on Theresa.
    But not, unfortunately, on Nicola.
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    Waiting times and beds for the NHS are hard to understand, and very dependant on where you live.
    I need treatment but was told 4 months waiting, so decided to go private, a five figure sum as I am not insured, and then even private have to wait until mid Feb as they still use NHS resources.

    Then out of the blue NHS say come in next week,not the same hospital or surgeon as private,but I am happy.
    I had an emergency admission and also elective NHS surgery last year, my experience was 100% positive.
    Wish they would take the politics out of the NHS.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The quote reads like someone resigning from the Conservative party:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/954348471074676736
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    I don't understand why something that we all kinda just accept in the US system (primaries) is considered so radical in the UK (deselection). Every elected official in the Senate and House has a chance someone within their party will run against them and the membership of their local party will decide who the candidate is. Is that not all some members of Labour are saying they want? It gives more power to local members, which gives an incentive for people to join the party (especially in areas where a Lab primary may be the "real" election). That's just a more democratic party system. I cannot see why this is such a controversial issue...?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    DavidL said:


    I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/
    The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.

    snip

    snip
    I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Your focus on Quebec's land area is extremely misleading given that the north of the province is almost uninhabited (indeed much of it is tundra). Most populous areas of the province are close enough to provincial borders – Montreal itself is only an hour's drive from the border with Ontario. So the Canadians manage it, yet we are endlessly informed on pb.com that it would be impossible for us to do so. Clearly regional/national visas for London and Scotland are a great way around the problems posed by brexit. Yet the brexiteers and neobrexiteers don't like the idea – probably because it allows Remain areas of the UK to wriggle out of the worst consequences of their project.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    I see that @GOsborneGenius, the artiste formerly known as tim of this parish, is not yet entirely reconciled to the takeover of the Labour party by a bunch of extremist, anti-EU, homeopathy-supporting, anti-Semitic, Lutfur Rahman-supporting, entryists.

    Liked his comment about Ruth. I miss his terse wit.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    Harsh on Theresa.
    But not, unfortunately, Nicola.
    Yup, recent history certainly suggest a Westminster government constantly offering solid proposals & analysis, negotiation & compromise, while the dastardly Nats just sail on not listening and issuing gnomic statements about how now is not the time.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited January 2018
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    He's right about the secrecy. My only speculation is that he has received and is continuing to receive some chemical treatment to remove his libido. I can't see how else anyone could possibly conclude he was safe. If that is right then some of the public concern would be assuaged but he still wouldn't have served nearly long enough for his crimes. He should have been prosecuted again.
    A possibly very interesting point on which you speculate. The parole board need to be somewhat more transparent though, the need for privacy of the offender should be balanced against the public reputation of the justice system to be seen to be fair.

    I think the general public expect to see someone handed a life sentence put away for a couple of decades at a minimum.
    There are several anti-androgenic and anti-libidinal drugs available, for example Gosrelin or DMPA (I should add that they are not exclusively used for 'chemical castration' - Gosrelin is used to treat prostate cancer and as part of the UK HT regime for transwomen).

    However, just because they induce either erectile dysfunction or libido reduction/elimination, this does not mean than an offender can be considered 'safe'. Sexual offences are often as much about power as sex.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    Harsh on Theresa.
    But not, unfortunately, Nicola.
    Yup, recent history certainly suggest a Westminster government constantly offering solid proposals & analysis, negotiation & compromise, while the dastardly Nats just sail on not listening and issuing gnomic statements about how now is not the time.
    LOL
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    If you pay Scottish income tax you can get a Scottish work permit? The income tax domicile has rules that could be applied here.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    I believe they do in Australia & Canada?
    Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
    I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.

    This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
    Lol, always good to get the informed view!
    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    If those 10k all got the train to London then that'd be Scotland's problem. The UK would be willing to tolerate the risk of an "extra" 10k of visas as part of a devolution settlement.

    I guess it could be solved by linking visa to job offers at Scottish companies, but people could always break those conditions, and go illegal, or forge or hack the system.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    The quote reads like someone resigning from the Conservative party:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/954348471074676736

    The Conservative Party has now reincorporated 75% of UKIP into itself.

    Meanwhile, UKIP itself is debating, in a circular firing squad, whether it should become BNP-lite.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.

    Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.

    That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
    The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.

    Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.

    I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.

    Harsh on Theresa.
    But not, unfortunately, Nicola.
    Yup, recent history certainly suggest a Westminster government constantly offering solid proposals & analysis, negotiation & compromise, while the dastardly Nats just sail on not listening and issuing gnomic statements about how now is not the time.
    Just maybe Nicola should try asking for something other than a second referendum? Or that we should remain in the Single Market?

    Where are the proposals about how fishing is going to be managed after Brexit? What do we want to revive our north eastern ports? What are our priorities in farming subsidies? What do we want from the trade deal with the EU?

    Maybe I am being unfair and behind the scenes there are lots of constructive discussions going on. But I doubt it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    He's right about the secrecy. My only speculation is that he has received and is continuing to receive some chemical treatment to remove his libido. I can't see how else anyone could possibly conclude he was safe. If that is right then some of the public concern would be assuaged but he still wouldn't have served nearly long enough for his crimes. He should have been prosecuted again.
    A possibly very interesting point on which you speculate. The parole board need to be somewhat more transparent though, the need for privacy of the offender should be balanced against the public reputation of the justice system to be seen to be fair.

    I think the general public expect to see someone handed a life sentence put away for a couple of decades at a minimum.
    There are several anti-androgenic and anti-libidinal drugs available, for example Gosrelin or DMPA (I should add that they are not exclusively used for 'chemical castration' - Gosrelin is used to treat prostate cancer and as part of the UK HT regime for transwomen).

    However, just because they induce either erectile dysfunction or libido reduction/elimination, this does not mean than an offender can be considered 'safe'. Sexual offences are often as much about power as sex.
    I know and this man seems to have a propensity to violence as well. I am appalled he is being let out.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I went to see The Darkest Hour last night and greatly enjoyed the film. An excellent portrayal of Churchill. I did feel,however, that there were serious historical inaccuracies which went beyond the fabricated London Underground scene. Halifax and Chamberlain were over-demonised. There was never a concerted effort to topple Churchill in the way suggested. Halifax certainly did wish to consider negotiations via Mussolini - but Chamberlain sat very much on the fence on the issue whilst Churchill received the firm support of the Labour War Cabinet members - Attlee & Greenwood.Churchill never forgot the support he received from his Labour colleagues at that crucial time, and Chamberlain eventually joined them in supporting him. Moreover, Chamberlain's cancer condition was not diagnosed until July 1940 and so lay in the future at the time of these events.
    Another inaccuracy related to Churchill's appointment as PM on May 10th 1940. He received the summons to the Palace at The Admiralty - not at Chartwell - and the succession to Chamberlain had been decided the day before at No 10. When asked by Chamberlain whether there was any problem with a Peer becoming PM , Churchill turned his back and simply remained silent - a silence which was only broken when Halifax himself spoke up to say that he did not think it appropriate in the circumstances for the PM to come from the House of Lords.

    The scene in the Commons where the opposition benches were loudly cheering him on whilst those behind him were largely silent was a demonstration of the support Labour gave him but I wondered if that was accurate too. Once Labour joined the unity government did their MPs still sit in the opposition benches?

    I do agree the film was harsh on Halifax.
    I was actually quite disappointed with the Darkest Hour. Except for Kristen-Scott Thomas.

    The tube scene really did ruin what was up to then a decidedly average film.

    The most moving part, I found, were the scenes dealing with Brigadier Nicholson and the siege of Calais.
This discussion has been closed.