Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The efforts to undermine Obamacare – the soft underbelly of Tr

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited July 25 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The efforts to undermine Obamacare – the soft underbelly of Trump’s electoral position

On the first anniversary of the Senate defeat of Trump’s health care repeal,and just three months before the crucial midterm elections, a new Public Policy Polling survey finds a majority of voters want to support candidates for Congress who oppose repealing the Affordable Care Act. This was brought in under Obama in 2010 and has provided health provision for millions of Americans.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,721
    First
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Isn't that inaccurate?

    I thought every party was in favour of a new national health service, they just differed on the specifics.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767
    The problem (politically) for the Democrats is that they, and a few moderate republicans, have saved Trump from himself.

    There was a very interesting series of interviews by Sarah Kliffe on this very topic in Kentucky.
    Basically Trump voters did not believe him when he said he would repeal the law.

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
  • RobCRobC Posts: 331
    Scott_P said:
    If I was a woman I'd want money to have sex with Trump. He must be the ugliest bastard in the Western Hemisphere.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,868
    edited July 25
    I think the Democrats will win the house and have bet accordingly.

    O/T The rape field behind our house is being combine harvested right now.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735
    How gullible are Trump voters? Couldn't he just say that if Obama hadn't created Obamacare in the first place he, Trump, couldn't now remove it, so it's all Obama's fault?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,619

    Isn't that inaccurate?

    I thought every party was in favour of a new national health service, they just differed on the specifics.

    Of course, and when Labour vote against the Brexit deal will you castigate them for opposing Brexit in its entirety, or accept that they are just differing on the specifics?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    fPT:

    MTimT said:
    » show previous quotes
    This conversation reminds me of the LA Speed Check story. For those of you who have never heard it, well worth the five minutes:

    https://twistedsifter.com/videos/an-sr-71-blackbird-pilot-recounts-his-infamous-la-speed-check-story/

    Thanks for that - that guy can tell a story! A master class for dialogue coaches....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,165
    I'm in favour of reviewing laws every 750 years or so, just to check they're up to date. Not very Conservative though.
  • RobCRobC Posts: 331
    Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,827
    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    Pulpstar said:

    I think the Democrats will win the house and have bet accordingly.

    O/T The rape field behind our house is being combine harvested right now.

    I'd give the Dems an 80% chance of winning the House.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,515
    RobC said:

    Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.

    Given their very cursory understanding of it - in particular the things it doesn’t solve - all that tells us is that they are desperate and realise that there’s an increasing chance Brexit won’t happen.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    Scott_P said:
    When the ERG told Theresa May she needed more spunk......
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
    They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,837
    To be fair to Trump, much of the Republican establishment are even more opposed to Obamacare than he is.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited July 25

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?
  • RobCRobC Posts: 331

    RobC said:

    Interesting to see the Norway Model is being floated again in the Tory press with Tim Stanley in the Telegraph and David Smith in the Times pushing it today.

    Given their very cursory understanding of it - in particular the things it doesn’t solve - all that tells us is that they are desperate and realise that there’s an increasing chance Brexit won’t happen.
    Yes I thought that too although personally as a Remainer that is fed up with the tedious trench warfare between the opposing sides I can live with it as it keeps us in the Single Market.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited July 25
    Sean_F said:

    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
    They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
    Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,827

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,340
    Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.
    Yes, but I don't think that's in any way personal. It's just because he is mad.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,668

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Sean_F said:

    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
    They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
    Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.
    In what way a travesty? He himself admitted his main defence was based on a lie.

    There were some controversies around Nuremberg as well of course, particularly over Hess and some of the military officers - I seem to remember Airey Neave believed Jodl would have been acquitted or at least, not executed had the trials been held a year later. He also criticised the judges for executing Sauckel while imprisoning Speer (who was ultimately in charge of the forced labour programme).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    And the other three-quarters? Just curious.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,411

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    Isn't all Islamic terrorism "far-right" extremism ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?
    No. But neither did I take extreme umbridge.

    I kept my sense of perspective.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Did you rofl, lmao and indeed pmsl at that hilarious quip?
    No. But neither did I take extreme umbridge.

    I kept my sense of perspective.
    Umbridge, a place for grumpy Archers listeners.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 39,303

    Umbridge, a place for grumpy Archers listeners.

    :smile:
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,411

    Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:

    Under Corbyn the tweeter would be arrested for taking the job of caring for the poor away from unionised public sector workers.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,474
    edited July 25

    Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
    twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/1022013754198958080

    Just About Managing, as a wise woman once described it. I'm not really sure why this tale is all over twitter. Did the twitterer ever give her any of the money from the car or under the telly, or just talk a lot about his virtue?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769

    Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:
    twitter.com/TheAlexSW19/status/1022013754198958080

    Just About Managing, as a wise woman once said. I'm not really sure why this tale is all over twitter. Did the twitterer ever give her any of the money from the car or under the telly, or just talk a lot about his virtue?
    Being harsh he paid her less than minimum wage to look after his kids for the summer. He didn’t have to and it no doubt helped her a lot in a very harsh and difficult situation. I thought it was commendable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769
    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    The author on the other hand...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,111
    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,407
    TGOHF said:

    Britain 2018. A moving tale from the front line of day-to-day life:

    Under Corbyn the tweeter would be arrested for taking the job of caring for the poor away from unionised public sector workers.

    You are still good at making shit up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,740
    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,740

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.

    Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769
    Foxy said:

    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.

    The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?

    Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,619

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.

    This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.

    This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,340

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.

    Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.
    Strangely the only people proposing that claim to be members of Britain's major unionist party i.e. The Conservatives.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    The only “terrorist” related death in the U.K. I can think of in this year was apparently caused by bumbling Russian poisoners. Have I forgotten more?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223
    edited July 25
    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    Indeed. The Good Friday Agreement played a huge part.

    Those who want to ignore that for the sake of Brexit are playing with fire.
    Surely, 'risk an explosion?'

    And if anyone hands me my coat in this heat, there will be an extreme terrorist incident involving cattle prods.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,740

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.

    This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.

    This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
    No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.

    For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,340
    Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:



  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,740
    DavidL said:

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    The only “terrorist” related death in the U.K. I can think of in this year was apparently caused by bumbling Russian poisoners. Have I forgotten more?
    Sadly, there was one in NI earlier in the year that was probably terrorist-related:
    https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/02/15/news/eye-witness-says-murder-scene-was-a-bloodbath-1256176/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:



    Don't laugh. We might be doing that ourselves in 9 months.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223
    ydoethur said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).
    Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Well, that's 'cake and eat it', which we all know (and so will Starmer) we ain't gonna get. Looks like Labour intends to create a pincer movement with the ERG to destroy Theresa's premiership when the time is right.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    ydoethur said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).
    Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.
    Well, he is a lawyer. If he can't come up with bullshit that sounds plausible, who can?

    I note as well he can count up to six, which means unlike the Treasury in the heady days of 1997 he doesn't rely on his fingers.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,384
    ydoethur said:

    Trump is an idiot, but sometimes in a hilarious way:



    Don't laugh. We might be doing that ourselves in 9 months.
    The point is the free movement of people. WIthout that, we would be close to signing up to everything else.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,619

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.

    This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.

    This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
    No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.

    For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).
    I suppose I'm interested in what the 103 incidents in 2014 were that amounted to only 4 injuries.

    If it's not people counting incidents differently, is it the police intercepting people at an earlier stage than they were able to in the 80s and 90s (and a raid that breaks up a plot being counted as an incident)? An example might be that person they picked up in Whitehall with the knives who they had been watching.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,868
    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    This is like Brown's various "tests" for stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
    Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,384

    ydoethur said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    We'll be calling him Gordon Starmer before long (especially since 2 is literally undeliverable).
    Smart move, wasn't it? Keir Starmer was well aware of the fact Labour would need intellectual cover for voting against the government's deal, so he drew up the tests in such a way as to sound reasonable whilst actually being impossible.
    Much the same way as Gordon Brown's Euro tests. It makes it seem like you're taking a reasoned stance free from 'politics', but in reality it just gives cover to 'do what we want, when we want it'.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223
    Cyclefree said:



    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.

    Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
    But there's no risk of that given that (a) it's the summer recess and (b) all the really aggressive interviewers - Paxman, Humphreys, Neil - have ben shunted sideways or retired.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
    Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
    Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355

    Cyclefree said:



    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.

    Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
    Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Looking at the figures on Wiki, it seems that terrorism incidents and deaths in the UK are (thankfully) nowhere near a modern high:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    For instance, in 2016 there were 104 incidents and 9 deaths; as recently as 1994 there were 256 incidents and 66 deaths. In fact, in terms of number of incidents we seem to be back at the pre-1994 'norm', and fatalities are not there yet (and I hope they do not get there).

    The Blair years appear to have been 'good' for lack of terrorism ...

    That's really weird. My impression of Irish Republican Terrorism as that, to an extent, they were not aiming to cause mass casualties. So, for example, they would often send coded warnings before bombs went off, allowing for evacuations.

    This is in marked contrast to Jihadi terrorism.

    This makes me suspect that there is an inconsistency in the way that incidents have been counted (as you would expect the counting of fatalities to be easier to get right).
    No, but AIUI there were lots of little incidents away from the bombings: shootings, kidnaps,etc. These would have not been the 'spectaculars' but would nonetheless have been terrorist incidents, and many caused fatalities.

    For instance, I've heard three IRA bombs go off: one in Derby, the Bishopsgate bomb, and the Baltic Exchange (the later two whilst living in the East End).
    I suppose I'm interested in what the 103 incidents in 2014 were that amounted to only 4 injuries.

    If it's not people counting incidents differently, is it the police intercepting people at an earlier stage than they were able to in the 80s and 90s (and a raid that breaks up a plot being counted as an incident)? An example might be that person they picked up in Whitehall with the knives who they had been watching.
    It wasn't just the IRA. Back in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's European far right and far left terrorists were simply much more effective than their modern counterparts.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735

    Cyclefree said:



    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.

    Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
    Indeed. Labour just have to reject it on some feigned objections and then sit back and watch the ERG do the rest.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Cyclefree said:



    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.

    Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
    It does however make Labour look hopelessly split, and raises the risk of No Deal.

    Or to put it another way, if Labour are serious about these six tests, which anyone with half a brain can see are simply not plausible, they will have to vote for No Deal give that is the alternative.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,740
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
    Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
    Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).
    A solicitor friend of mine said that the police are stupid, sometimes because they genuinely are stupid as individuals, and often enforced stupidity because of the rules they have to work under. However they do a reasonable job as the criminals are almost always more stupid.

    According to him, the problems occur when clever criminals come into existence.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
    I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
    Nottinghamshire Police and the CPS under Starmer spring to mind:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
    Fortunately, most far-right would be terrorists are inept in the extreme (with the occasional exception like David Copeland).
    A solicitor friend of mine said that the police are stupid, sometimes because they genuinely are stupid as individuals, and often enforced stupidity because of the rules they have to work under. However they do a reasonable job as the criminals are almost always more stupid.

    According to him, the problems occur when clever criminals come into existence.
    Fortunately, most criminals are not clever. And those that are are more likely to carry out white collar crime, rather than violent crime.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
    I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.
    I don't think the second one meets 3. The only way we can have a deal that meets all of them is Remain PLUS an end to FOM. Which is about as likely as Martin Selmayr admitting his grandfather was responsible for those massacres in Yugoslavia.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
    I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.
    Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,668
    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223
    Sean_F said:



    Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.

    Probably, although since Starmer doesn't define "fair" migration he gives himself an out.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.

    And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.

    Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
    Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.
    Priorities, priorities. Labour want to destroy the Tories first. They can then have a pleasant old chinwag about where to take us with Brexit when they've seized the levers of power.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,111
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.

    The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?

    Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
    The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.

    The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    Sean_F said:



    Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.

    Probably, although since Starmer doesn't define "fair" migration he gives himself an out.
    Corbyn has made remarks on the subject however:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-nigel-farage-scottish-labour-foreign-worker-attack-kezia-dugdale-a8249691.html
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.

    The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?

    Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
    The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.

    The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
    No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,398

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
    I always get grief from Leavers for highlighting Hannan's claim 'nobody is suggesting we will leave the Single Market.' They claim it was taken out of context. (Since it was a simple, and wrong, statement of fact I'm not sure context is relevant.)

    However, it is a little worrying if an opposition that may be jockeying for power has no clue what to do with it once it gets there, apart from a load of uncosted ideas on spending and some oxymoronic platitudes on foreign affairs, don't you think?
  • RobCRobC Posts: 331

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
    Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,111
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.

    The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?

    Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
    The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.

    The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
    No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
    There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.

    There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    On Topic!

    Withdrawal of entitlements is indeed causing problems. See this tweet.



    It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.

    The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?

    Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
    The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.

    The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
    Thanks. When this becomes a tax on the sick the stupid American law that bans Medicare from negotiating with suppliers becomes truly wicked. It is a licence for abuse.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735
    The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    7. Does it include unicorns farting electricity out of their backsides ?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 1,223

    The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?

    As you say, though, nailing the Tories is, has to be, priority 1.

    Obviously if economic chaos can be avoided that's great, but Labour are not going to not cause chaos if they have a chance to bring down the government.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,769

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
    Leavers were clear that people’s rights would be determined by their directly elected Parliament , not Brussels. They were clear that FoM would end. They were clear that payments from the EU would end and that it would be up to the U.K. what replaced them. Whether these are advantages or disadvantages perhaps depends on your individual perspective.

    As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years. I fear that this has been driven by weakness, ineptitude and a lack of decisiveness but just maybe May has a cunning plan. We had all better hope so.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Sean_F said:

    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
    They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
    Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.
    If the Defendant were facing imprisonment, rather than execution, I think there's a good chance that a modern court would uphold the decision.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,837
    RobC said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
    Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.
    I read the Chequers Plan white paper in Canada (in almost total isolation from the U.K. media) and found it an acceptable compromise. My views being similar to Gove in that regard: not ideal but the right strategic balance for the UK.

    I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
    They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
    Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.
    In what way a travesty? He himself admitted his main defence was based on a lie.

    There were some controversies around Nuremberg as well of course, particularly over Hess and some of the military officers - I seem to remember Airey Neave believed Jodl would have been acquitted or at least, not executed had the trials been held a year later. He also criticised the judges for executing Sauckel while imprisoning Speer (who was ultimately in charge of the forced labour programme).
    I tend to think Jodl was very unlucky to be executed.

    Neave's account of Nuremburg was fascinating.
  • RobCRobC Posts: 331

    The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?

    As you say, though, nailing the Tories is, has to be, priority 1.

    Obviously if economic chaos can be avoided that's great, but Labour are not going to not cause chaos if they have a chance to bring down the government.
    Old men in a hurry no doubt but I'm not sure causing chaos is the way forward for Labour. They need to reunite their europhile and eurosceptic support bases to win the next election and that can be done if the least harmful type of Brexit can be negotiated under the Tory banner
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,837
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    Any competent interviewer would be able to make mincemeat of Starmer or Corbyn using those "tests". They're garbage - either designed to give Labour cover to reject any deal and end up with no deal or to fool Labour supporters that Labour would negotiate a softer Brexit - or both.
    I can see only Remain and EEA+CU being the only two options that meet the tests. If May folds, and EEA+CU is what she offers, then Labour might support it. Even then it'd probably be in their interests to reject it on a technicality, although May could probably rely on the Umunnites to vote against the Labour whip and get it over the finish line.
    Remain and EEA/CU would both breach test no. 3.
    Of course the Government will fail the tests regardless of what they do or how well the negotiations go.

    Theresa May may find herself relying on the abstentions (or even active votes) of several dozen Labour MP rebels at the end who want to avoid no deal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,837
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And people call Andrew Adonis mad.

    At least he doesn’t imply the death penalty should be brought back for his political opponents.

    This is proto- or even full on fascist stuff.
    Loss of sense of humour in this heat?
    Not really. An MP was murdered two years ago by a mad Brexit extremist. Even if Campbell Bannerman is joking, he is helping to normalise the idea of death for Remainers.
    Around a quarter of all terrorist plots at present are from far-right extremists. Far too many Leavers are completely insouciant about the way in which they give nourishment to them.
    There's really nothing in that tweet that suggests it is a joke in any way.
    It's a stupid tweet. In the past one could say things like "I'd love to murder such and such" and everyone would know it was not meant seriously. Unfortunately, there are some nuts out there who do now take such comments seriously.
    Twitter makes fools of many people.
This discussion has been closed.