Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Those whom the Gods wish to destroy. What happens next now tha

1235»

Comments

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    CD13 said:

    This attitude means that the leaver views often harden.

    You stark staring bonkers nasty stupid racist swivel-eyed doolally prole!

    Now will you change your mind and do as you're told? Please?
    This from the very woman who called me a 'Remainiac' a few posts after criticising me for calling people names! I often like your posts, but less of the rank hypocrisy please. The header is clearly designed to provoke – nowt wrong with that from time to time.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387
    CD13 said:

    if I were PM, I take LEAVE to mean leaving the EU and all it's devilish works ... sorry, all its institution. That means we can make our own decisions on trade and FOM.

    Not true.

    We can't make our own decisions on Trade. Any decision requires the agreement of at least one other party
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    tpfkar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I actually came here to highlight this - really should be the big domestic story right now. I'm aware of some of what they are proposing, and I see court cases ahead over what is and isn't statutory provision. Sounds like a nightmare to work there at the moment, albeit a well-paid nightmare in many roles.
    The fact that many of the roles are so well paid and yet filled so inadequately is of course something of an issue in itself.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,253
    Unsurprisingly another bad tempered Meeks thread - if you call 50% of the population lunatics who want to watch the world burn then expect some criticism.

    My thoughts - Alastair seems to live in a world where any criticism of those in power is not allowed.

    Second on the polling - the weakness of this type of polling for a complicated issue is that like the referendum it does not allow people to explain their thoughts. This allows obsessive like AM to conclude that people would be happy for and want violence in NI. I personally think the risk to Peace is low and that it should not prevent democratic decisions being implemented. Apparently that makes me a lunatic. Then apparently if you would be happy for NI or Scotland to leave the union you are some sort of flag waving racist, but over 40% in each country have supported this.

    AM says that Leavers are unhinged because they would allow being worse off toleave the EU. I look forward to his many articles calling labour voters feral, craziness and lunatics, as John McDonnell has said he wants to overthrow capitalism and has threatened capital controls, this would make lots of people who vote labour worse off. In fact I have always voted Libdem in the knowledge that they had proposed taxes that would make me worse off.

    This is detracts from his betting comments which whilst appear scattergun actually reflect the true position. Lots of people on here don’t think it will be Boris. If polling continues to show that only Boris beats Corbyn then it might be. And whilst AM confuses support for a particular type of deal with enthusiasm for it, it is just as likely the the EU negotiating in bad faith means that public opinion could move the other way.

    I’m reminded of the nightmare end to Hotel California - ‘You can check out any time you like,
    but you can never leave’ is not something I would want to be associated with. I voted remain but we must respect the vote.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,159
    Pulpstar said:

    tpfkar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I actually came here to highlight this - really should be the big domestic story right now. I'm aware of some of what they are proposing, and I see court cases ahead over what is and isn't statutory provision. Sounds like a nightmare to work there at the moment, albeit a well-paid nightmare in many roles.
    I've sent an email to the leader of Nottinghamshire council telling her to get on with unitarising the area.
    One of the strange consequences of the Northamptonshire collapse is that Oxfordshire's application for unitary status has been put on indefinite hold.

    Cherwell District Council (aka North Oxfordshire) had a shared-services deal with South Northamptonshire District Council. The collapse of NCC and likely forced unitarisation into North Northants and South Northants means that this is no longer viable. So Cherwell has been forced into a shotgun marriage with Oxfordshire County Council, despite Cherwell (which represents everything backward about shire Tory districts) fiercely opposing OCC's unitary plan.

    DCLG has concluded, probably rightly, that unitary status can't be considered while OCC is digesting Cherwell. The end result, I think, is that unitary status is more likely for Oxfordshire in the long run, but less so in the short run.

    (Of the other districts, South and Vale both support unitary status; West Oxfordshire is a bizarre Westminster-lite sea of reconstructed rural Thatcherism and opposes it; and Oxford City, as the only Labour authority in the county, unsurprisingly doesn't want to be swallowed up.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,219
    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    What was unfortunate about her plans was the way they popped out of a hat with no warning and very little evidence of having been thought through, then they were run away from. The need for a substantial additional flow of income to support social care is obvious and pressing. Charging people for it, even post mortem, really needs to generate £3-5bn a year. That is a lot of tax but the idea that the general taxpayer should pay these bills so that inheritances are enhanced by that amount is unsustainable.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,396

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    I wasn’t expecting universal enthusiasm for the article. I was hoping that the actual argument might be engaged with. Two posters have offered up different versions of “they don’t really mean it”, despite this requiring radical reinterpretation of the formally asked questions and all the different polling evidence suggesting that they do.

    It’s time to take this polling literally and consider what that means. The answer is not good.

    Ask extremely loaded questions, and you get answers that don't mean a lot.
    These aren’t extremely loaded questions. They are telling us something useful, if unwelcome.
    The one issue I have with your interesting - if depressing - header is your assumption that Corbyn’s Labour will oppose Brexit. I see nothing to support this. Quite the opposite, in fact. Or are you saying that people believe that he might?
    Apologies, I missed this. No, I don't think Jeremy Corbyn will lead Labour to oppose Brexit (though he might be dragged in that direction). I do think that those firmly opposed to Brexit will nevertheless support Labour as the least worst option.
    Thanks. I understand why you say this. But I find it very odd that if you are against Brexit or want a soft Brexit, you would vote Labour. Given where we are I would prefer the softest possible Brexit and if I really thought Labour would go for this, I might be tempted. But I don’t. Labour will be very happy to come to power on the back of the hardest and most disastrous Brexit possible and have shown no inclination to ameliorate it. And I think they will make things worse. It is one reason why I really hope for the softest possible Brexit, if we can’t get a Pause while we think hard about what we really want to do and how to get there (which should have been done in the first place).
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK is closer to Australia, Canada and New Zealand than the USA.

    Up to 24% would vote for a far right anti immigration party with Yougov

    I do not think that is what YouGov measured but either way how does "up to 24%" in a hypothetical poll before "25 to 35%"?
    As that would be after reversing Brexit, 24% was with Brexit
    So what? I voted for Brexit but I'd never in a million years vote for the far right.

    In fact on this forum I can think of extraordinarily few Brexiteers who would. Maybe you would but don't project that into us.
    I never said I would, I even voted Remain.

    Yougov had 24% voting for a far right party potentially and 38% for a right wing pro Brexit Party
    A right wing pro Brexit party is today's Conservatives. It is not the far right Bannon party.

    Any new far right party would struggle to get any more than the BNP got in the past.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387
    Cyclefree said:

    if you are against Brexit or want a soft Brexit, you would vote Labour.

    Brexit is a Tory project
  • Scott_P said:

    felix said:

    perhaps every other week would get us to the very apex of democracy.

    Technically, yes.

    EDIT: There is a scene in the Big Bang Theory where Amy and Sheldon discuss the deals they have made with their mothers to date or attend church once a year. Amy is bemused by the concept of a Deity that takes attendance...

    I am bemused by "democrats" who place limits on how often we can vote.

    1 = democracy

    >1 = anarchy (apparently)
    Theres no limits. We have a schedule for how often General Elections are and a principle that referendums only follow elections that backed them. Hence the Tories had to win the 2015 election to hold the 2016 referendum. The Scots had to win Holyrood to hold their 2014 referendum.

    The principle then is clear. If at the next or a subsequent election a party wins with a manifesto pledge to hold a rejoin the EU referendum they can do so. What can be fairer than that?
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,436
    Scott_P said:

    matt said:

    Here’s a thought. Referendums are fundamentally unsuitable to multiple branching consequences where we need third parties to align. They allow demagoguery and simple minded thinking. We elect MPs to mitigate public opinion rather than blindly following it.

    This has been discussed previously. There is an argument for a referendum where the politicians have decided something they want to do, have a concrete plan for delivery, and are seeking public consent.

    The Ireland abortion referendum followed this model.

    Brexit did not.
    No, they're very different. The Irish referendum was predicated on an internal Irish legal change which did not, for example, involve negotiations with multiple international third parties with competing interests. The line between choice and consequence is simple and direct.

    Leaving a multilateral institution is a markedly different event.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,584
    edited August 2018
    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387
    matt said:

    No, they're very different.

    Leaving a multilateral institution is a markedly different event.

    Ummm, that's the point.

    There are times when a referendum is a good idea. There are times when it is not.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387

    Theres no limits.

    ...apart from the limits you then go on to articulate...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,257
    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Should PB.com be renamed FBPE.com ?

    One of the sad parts of the post referendum landscape is the utter lack of betting posts and descent into shrill virtue signalling.


    It’s August, at the arse end of the Brexit negotiations. What do you expect? Is there a market on what dog whistle Boris the burqa botherer will sound next?
    Response to calling out shrill virtue signalling is a shrill signalling of virtue. Lol.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,784
    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I've raised this on a few occasions but the usual suspects on here are only interested in tit-for-tat jibes on Brexit, cricket and F1 and that's three topics all worth avoiding.

    The financial contagion isn't limited to the Conservative counties and as you say might mark the long-overdue end of the two-tier local Government structure. However, the "economy" of Unitaries isn't always obvious.

    I am told by others the Government is awash with money but is going to throw it all in a Brownian motion to the NHS instead of where it might do some real good.

    I was also told by an elderly Conservative that what did for Heath weren't the electoral defeats of 1974 but the local Government re-organisation. Presumably any Conservative abolishing Surrey, Kent and Hampshire can expect a similar fate.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,257
    edited August 2018
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,038
    matt said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Another vote would be more democracy, not less."

    And then another one until you get the answer you want.

    Here's an original thought. Once the ybreferendum question has been answered, implement the result. Then, if you decide later you might have changed your mind, start plans to arrange another.

    Here’s a thought. Referendums are fundamentally unsuitable to multiple branching consequences where we need third parties to align. They allow demagoguery and simple minded thinking. We elect MPs to mitigate public opinion rather than blindly following it.

    More broadly if the basis of a referendum victory is active lying to a public which is, in broad terms, unused to questions which the consequences of a referendum at basis its moral basis is near zero.
    So you would have opposed the Scottish Independence referendum?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,159
    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.

    I would be very interested to read such an article by Richard Nabavi.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018
    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    There's a definite bias towards (1) getting a rise out of the denizens below the line, especially our more reliably huffy Brexiteers and (2) wanting to be seen as "voices of reason" in these increasingly silly political times. I think both are fine.

    Also bear in mind that Mr Meeks's articles tend to have tongues firmly in cheeks, of the ha-ha-only-serious kind.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,647

    Scott_P said:

    felix said:

    perhaps every other week would get us to the very apex of democracy.

    Technically, yes.

    EDIT: There is a scene in the Big Bang Theory where Amy and Sheldon discuss the deals they have made with their mothers to date or attend church once a year. Amy is bemused by the concept of a Deity that takes attendance...

    I am bemused by "democrats" who place limits on how often we can vote.

    1 = democracy

    >1 = anarchy (apparently)
    Theres no limits. We have a schedule for how often General Elections are and a principle that referendums only follow elections that backed them. Hence the Tories had to win the 2015 election to hold the 2016 referendum. The Scots had to win Holyrood to hold their 2014 referendum.

    The principle then is clear. If at the next or a subsequent election a party wins with a manifesto pledge to hold a rejoin the EU referendum they can do so. What can be fairer than that?
    Ingenuous. Referenda are to get Prime Ministers off the hook, from Wilson to Cameron.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068

    Pulpstar said:

    tpfkar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I actually came here to highlight this - really should be the big domestic story right now. I'm aware of some of what they are proposing, and I see court cases ahead over what is and isn't statutory provision. Sounds like a nightmare to work there at the moment, albeit a well-paid nightmare in many roles.
    I've sent an email to the leader of Nottinghamshire council telling her to get on with unitarising the area.
    One of the strange consequences of the Northamptonshire collapse is that Oxfordshire's application for unitary status has been put on indefinite hold.

    Cherwell District Council (aka North Oxfordshire) had a shared-services deal with South Northamptonshire District Council. The collapse of NCC and likely forced unitarisation into North Northants and South Northants means that this is no longer viable. So Cherwell has been forced into a shotgun marriage with Oxfordshire County Council, despite Cherwell (which represents everything backward about shire Tory districts) fiercely opposing OCC's unitary plan.

    DCLG has concluded, probably rightly, that unitary status can't be considered while OCC is digesting Cherwell. The end result, I think, is that unitary status is more likely for Oxfordshire in the long run, but less so in the short run.

    (Of the other districts, South and Vale both support unitary status; West Oxfordshire is a bizarre Westminster-lite sea of reconstructed rural Thatcherism and opposes it; and Oxford City, as the only Labour authority in the county, unsurprisingly doesn't want to be swallowed up.)
    I hadn't come across that proposal. The Inspector doesn't pull his punches, does he, saying that the County Council is too far gone to be saved and even making the attempt would be a reward for failure?

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/690731/Best_Value_Inspection_NCC.pdf
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,396
    Scott_P said:

    Cyclefree said:

    if you are against Brexit or want a soft Brexit, you would vote Labour.

    Brexit is a Tory project
    I know. But Labour are not proposing to reverse it or soften it. Chuka Umunna might. But he has no sway within Labour. A Tory hard Brexit will suit Corbyn’s Labour very well. So if you do want a soft slow Brexit, you’re a bit stuffed .....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,219
    Scott_P said:

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
    My parents used to tell me I want doesn't get. Someone should tell Boris.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,605
    Mr. Stodge, such local council stories deserve a lot more media attention, as does the ongoing impact of PFI idiotic deals (including with the matter of NHS funding).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I've raised this on a few occasions but the usual suspects on here are only interested in tit-for-tat jibes on Brexit, cricket and F1 and that's three topics all worth avoiding.

    The financial contagion isn't limited to the Conservative counties and as you say might mark the long-overdue end of the two-tier local Government structure. However, the "economy" of Unitaries isn't always obvious.

    I am told by others the Government is awash with money but is going to throw it all in a Brownian motion to the NHS instead of where it might do some real good.

    I was also told by an elderly Conservative that what did for Heath weren't the electoral defeats of 1974 but the local Government re-organisation. Presumably any Conservative abolishing Surrey, Kent and Hampshire can expect a similar fate.
    In fairness, 74 was an utter shambles. That's why although the previous iteration lasted with only quite minor modifications for 85 years the 74 version only managed 22.

    It was a very Heathite way of going about things - wandering in with all the knowledge and the best intentions and ultimately sodding it all up by ignoring legitimate concerns and imposing his will from the centre.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,396

    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.

    I would be very interested to read such an article by Richard Nabavi.
    I don’t think Mr Nabavi would ever describe himself as an ardent Leaver. Unless I’ve missed something!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387
    Cyclefree said:

    I know. But Labour are not proposing to reverse it or soften it. Chuka Umunna might. But he has no sway within Labour. A Tory hard Brexit will suit Corbyn’s Labour very well. So if you do want a soft slow Brexit, you’re a bit stuffed .....

    All of which is true, but given that we are going to end up with a crap Brexit whoever you vote for, why "reward" those who created it?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,038
    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    I had Sky News on this morning and heard this story. The presenter didn't name Davidson and instead simply described her as a "Senior Tory". So I looked it up and found out it was Davidson.

    This made me ask, was she not named because people wouldn't know who she was; or was she not named because Sky know that it is a f****** stupid comment. My money is on the latter.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,268
    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.

    And preferably one that actually lives here
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,159
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.

    I would be very interested to read such an article by Richard Nabavi.
    I don’t think Mr Nabavi would ever describe himself as an ardent Leaver. Unless I’ve missed something!
    No, indeed, but my sense is that he is perhaps the person here most likely to both understand the Leaver mindset and be capable of writing a coherent article.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,257
    tlg86 said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    I had Sky News on this morning and heard this story. The presenter didn't name Davidson and instead simply described her as a "Senior Tory". So I looked it up and found out it was Davidson.

    This made me ask, was she not named because people wouldn't know who she was; or was she not named because Sky know that it is a f****** stupid comment. My money is on the latter.
    She's turning out to be a McMay. Don't think she has any chance of being Uk leader of the Conservatives - far too wet. That may serve her well in Scotland but like deep fried mars bars , popularity south of Carlisle may have a low ceiling.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,784


    One of the strange consequences of the Northamptonshire collapse is that Oxfordshire's application for unitary status has been put on indefinite hold.

    Cherwell District Council (aka North Oxfordshire) had a shared-services deal with South Northamptonshire District Council. The collapse of NCC and likely forced unitarisation into North Northants and South Northants means that this is no longer viable. So Cherwell has been forced into a shotgun marriage with Oxfordshire County Council, despite Cherwell (which represents everything backward about shire Tory districts) fiercely opposing OCC's unitary plan.

    DCLG has concluded, probably rightly, that unitary status can't be considered while OCC is digesting Cherwell. The end result, I think, is that unitary status is more likely for Oxfordshire in the long run, but less so in the short run.

    (Of the other districts, South and Vale both support unitary status; West Oxfordshire is a bizarre Westminster-lite sea of reconstructed rural Thatcherism and opposes it; and Oxford City, as the only Labour authority in the county, unsurprisingly doesn't want to be swallowed up.)

    Many Councils are now involved in a cat's cradle of "partnerships", "collaborations" and "shared service deals" basically around trying to reduce back office costs.

    The problem, as the Tri-Borough experience in west London showed, is merging three into one doesn't reduce costs by two thirds or anything like it. The work still has to be done and the three sovereign authorities remain in existence so everything ends up in triplicate.

    Using Surrey as an example, there is one County and eleven Borough and District Councils but that would work best? One unitary like Cornwall, three Unitaries, something else? What about actual local democracy and accountability?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,143

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    There is a definite bias toward Remainer-written articles on PB. The mix below the line is more even, which is one of the reasons the threads are so lively.

    It would be great if one of the more ardent Leavers would pen an article setting out the next 5 years, assuming Brexit is 'achieved' by either a Deal or a No Deal. What is the road map you see being followed, realistically? Set out why that's better for the nation, for our prosperity, and our future happiness than remaining in the EU.

    Redress the balance. Make your case.

    I would be very interested to read such an article by Richard Nabavi.
    I don’t think Mr Nabavi would ever describe himself as an ardent Leaver. Unless I’ve missed something!
    No, indeed, but my sense is that he is perhaps the person here most likely to both understand the Leaver mindset and be capable of writing a coherent article.
    The problem is not one of understanding the Leaver mindset: that's easy. The problem is sympathising with it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 13,284
    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    Do you know any Muslim women who are forced to wear a Burka when they leave the house?

    For the sake of clarity, this is not a rhetorical question.
  • Scott_P said:

    Cyclefree said:

    if you are against Brexit or want a soft Brexit, you would vote Labour.

    Brexit is a Tory project
    Brexit is the people's project.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 42,387

    Brexit is the people's project.

    Really? Let's have a vote on that, shall we?
  • CD13 said:

    Dr P.

    "Alastair is a PB Institution. Only it isn't clear which Institution he escaped from."


    LOL.

    Alastair is tangled up in blue.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    SeanT said:


    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Honestly I think Boris has guaranteed the parliamentary party will do everything in their power to ensure he *never* gets put to the membership.

    Including not moving against May as long as he remains an alternative.

    In his own idiotic way, he's done more to shore up May's precarious position than anyone.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,945
    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    Hopeless. None of these right-ons are prepared to grapple with the reasons why these burkas are worn, none of which we should be welcoming in a liberal society.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    Scott_P said:
    If the devil is trying to buy Boris' soul, he's going to be sorely disappointed with his end of the bargain on collection...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,268
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
    My parents used to tell me I want doesn't get. Someone should tell Boris.
    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Britain is in an almost wartime situation. Boris is the kind of politician who might just prosper as a charismatic wartime leader, whereas he flounders with the tedium of more ordinary ministerial politics.
    Someone devoid of both principles and integrity is not what you want from a leader, wartime or no
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,780
    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I've raised this on a few occasions but the usual suspects on here are only interested in tit-for-tat jibes on Brexit, cricket and F1 and that's three topics all worth avoiding.

    The financial contagion isn't limited to the Conservative counties and as you say might mark the long-overdue end of the two-tier local Government structure. However, the "economy" of Unitaries isn't always obvious.

    I am told by others the Government is awash with money but is going to throw it all in a Brownian motion to the NHS instead of where it might do some real good.

    I was also told by an elderly Conservative that what did for Heath weren't the electoral defeats of 1974 but the local Government re-organisation. Presumably any Conservative abolishing Surrey, Kent and Hampshire can expect a similar fate.
    In fairness, 74 was an utter shambles. That's why although the previous iteration lasted with only quite minor modifications for 85 years the 74 version only managed 22.

    It was a very Heathite way of going about things - wandering in with all the knowledge and the best intentions and ultimately sodding it all up by ignoring legitimate concerns and imposing his will from the centre.
    Heath was, of course, a Conservative, so you would expect him to go about things in this way. The present lot are no different.
  • DavidL said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good morning all!

    Perhaps we should have a referendum on whether Mr Meeks should write any more headers about Brexit. I know how I’d vote.

    I'd vote yes. He is a superb and witty writer, he is thought provoking and he is free! What's not to like? If we all agreed with every header this would be a much duller site.
    Hear, hear.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,877
    edited August 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Which PB poster (With a vague interest in cricket) is closest to Lords at the moment, and can they give me a weather update. Need to know when best to lay the draw (Or back it if it'll rain all day)..

    The Met office rain radar map might help. It is realtime actual so not a forecast, but if you run the animation, you can see the direction and pace of the rain and make your own forecast. I think it will clear up mid afternoon.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/observation/map/#?map=Rainfall&zoom=7&lon=-2.89&lat=51.17&fcTime=1533764700

    EDIT: On re-inspection, probably not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    Toss is delayed at Lord's.

    Cue jokes about ECB officials not turning up so there are no tossers present...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    PClipp said:

    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I've raised this on a few occasions but the usual suspects on here are only interested in tit-for-tat jibes on Brexit, cricket and F1 and that's three topics all worth avoiding.

    The financial contagion isn't limited to the Conservative counties and as you say might mark the long-overdue end of the two-tier local Government structure. However, the "economy" of Unitaries isn't always obvious.

    I am told by others the Government is awash with money but is going to throw it all in a Brownian motion to the NHS instead of where it might do some real good.

    I was also told by an elderly Conservative that what did for Heath weren't the electoral defeats of 1974 but the local Government re-organisation. Presumably any Conservative abolishing Surrey, Kent and Hampshire can expect a similar fate.
    In fairness, 74 was an utter shambles. That's why although the previous iteration lasted with only quite minor modifications for 85 years the 74 version only managed 22.

    It was a very Heathite way of going about things - wandering in with all the knowledge and the best intentions and ultimately sodding it all up by ignoring legitimate concerns and imposing his will from the centre.
    Heath was, of course, a Conservative, so you would expect him to go about things in this way. The present lot are no different.
    Actually, one of the (many) things he was criticised for was adopting Labour's methods of rule from the centre by diktat.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,436
    tlg86 said:

    matt said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Another vote would be more democracy, not less."

    And then another one until you get the answer you want.

    Here's an original thought. Once the ybreferendum question has been answered, implement the result. Then, if you decide later you might have changed your mind, start plans to arrange another.

    Here’s a thought. Referendums are fundamentally unsuitable to multiple branching consequences where we need third parties to align. They allow demagoguery and simple minded thinking. We elect MPs to mitigate public opinion rather than blindly following it.

    More broadly if the basis of a referendum victory is active lying to a public which is, in broad terms, unused to questions which the consequences of a referendum at basis its moral basis is near zero.
    So you would have opposed the Scottish Independence referendum?
    Yes. I would have left it to Scottish representatives though.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,681
    edited August 2018
    RoyalBlue said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    Hopeless. None of these right-ons are prepared to grapple with the reasons why these burkas are worn, none of which we should be welcoming in a liberal society.
    Yes, but banning the burqa doesn't address any of those issues.

    That's what makes it such a shitty thing to do/propose.

    Do you think once the burqa is banned those women being forced to wear it will
    A) be allowed to go out in public without a burqa
    B ) not be allowed to go out at all.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,268

    SeanT said:


    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Honestly I think Boris has guaranteed the parliamentary party will do everything in their power to ensure he *never* gets put to the membership.

    Including not moving against May as long as he remains an alternative.

    In his own idiotic way, he's done more to shore up May's precarious position than anyone.
    +1
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,523
    ydoethur said:

    Toss is delayed at Lord's.

    Cue jokes about ECB officials not turning up so there are no tossers present...

    Going to lay at 2-1 for 20/40. Once play starts and Cook edges the price will inexorably move in.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,143
    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:


    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Honestly I think Boris has guaranteed the parliamentary party will do everything in their power to ensure he *never* gets put to the membership.

    Including not moving against May as long as he remains an alternative.

    In his own idiotic way, he's done more to shore up May's precarious position than anyone.
    +1
    A point made in my thread header.

    But I agree with @SeanT. For the same reason, Boris Johnson has a real chance now. His abject incompetence is irrelevant to this calculation because he is now perceived as the most senior pure Leaver.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,068
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Toss is delayed at Lord's.

    Cue jokes about ECB officials not turning up so there are no tossers present...

    Going to lay at 2-1 for 20/40. Once play starts and Cook edges the price will inexorably move in.
    You're a pessimist, Pulpstar. Think positive. He won't be out until first ball after tea...

    As India will have batted first and been all out in two sesssions.
  • Alistair said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    Hopeless. None of these right-ons are prepared to grapple with the reasons why these burkas are worn, none of which we should be welcoming in a liberal society.
    Yes, but banning the burqa doesn't address any of those issues.

    That's what makes it such a shitty thing to do/propose.

    Do you think once the burqa is banned those women being forced to wear it will
    A) be allowed to go out in public without a burqa
    B ) not be allowed to go out at all.

    Boris is against banning the burqa of course.

    So those against Boris are presumably the ones in favour of banning the burqa.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,268
    This thread is now OLD
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,523
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Toss is delayed at Lord's.

    Cue jokes about ECB officials not turning up so there are no tossers present...

    Going to lay at 2-1 for 20/40. Once play starts and Cook edges the price will inexorably move in.
    You're a pessimist, Pulpstar. Think positive. He won't be out until first ball after tea...

    As India will have batted first and been all out in two sesssions.
    Perhaps ! Bar Kohli the Indian batting was dire last game.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,780
    ydoethur said:

    PClipp said:

    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know whether this (specific) story has been discussed but I can foresee it becoming very nasty:

    Northamptonshire council meets to vote on huge cuts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45124215

    Ultimately, this is one of a number of shire counties at risk of being bankrupted by social care costs. This one has broken early because there were other very significant issues which I am aware of but won't reveal for legal reasons.

    There are a number of possible ramifications:

    1) We may well see the end of these authorities in favour of unitary ones in the not-so-distant future, as an economy measure;

    2) Suddenly Theresa May's unfortunate plans on social care may become an issue again.

    I've raised this on a few occasions but the usual suspects on here are only interested in tit-for-tat jibes on Brexit, cricket and F1 and that's three topics all worth avoiding.

    The financial contagion isn't limited to the Conservative counties and as you say might mark the long-overdue end of the two-tier local Government structure. However, the "economy" of Unitaries isn't always obvious.

    I am told by others the Government is awash with money but is going to throw it all in a Brownian motion to the NHS instead of where it might do some real good.

    I was also told by an elderly Conservative that what did for Heath weren't the electoral defeats of 1974 but the local Government re-organisation. Presumably any Conservative abolishing Surrey, Kent and Hampshire can expect a similar fate.
    In fairness, 74 was an utter shambles. That's why although the previous iteration lasted with only quite minor modifications for 85 years the 74 version only managed 22.

    It was a very Heathite way of going about things - wandering in with all the knowledge and the best intentions and ultimately sodding it all up by ignoring legitimate concerns and imposing his will from the centre.
    Heath was, of course, a Conservative, so you would expect him to go about things in this way. The present lot are no different.
    Actually, one of the (many) things he was criticised for was adopting Labour's methods of rule from the centre by diktat.
    Yes, Labour were and are equally authoritarian and equally closed to other points of view.
  • Scott_P said:

    Brexit is the people's project.

    Really? Let's have a vote on that, shall we?
    Already happened.
  • Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Which PB poster (With a vague interest in cricket) is closest to Lords at the moment, and can they give me a weather update. Need to know when best to lay the draw (Or back it if it'll rain all day)..

    The Met office rain radar map might help. It is realtime actual so not a forecast, but if you run the animation, you can see the direction and pace of the rain and make your own forecast. I think it will clear up mid afternoon.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/observation/map/#?map=Rainfall&zoom=7&lon=-2.89&lat=51.17&fcTime=1533764700

    EDIT: On re-inspection, probably not.
    A good toss to win and put the other side in to bat.
  • SeanT said:

    Gabby being gabby.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,945
    Lots of Tory MPs care about their jobs more than anything else. If Boris polls best, he’ll be in the final two.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,360
    RoyalBlue said:

    Lots of Tory MPs care about their jobs more than anything else. If Boris polls best, he’ll be in the final two.

    Really? How many MPs fall into the category "I think I would hold my seat under Boris but not under AN Other"?

    Once you start looking at their majorities and their political sympathies you're in the low teens at a maximum.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,945

    RoyalBlue said:

    Lots of Tory MPs care about their jobs more than anything else. If Boris polls best, he’ll be in the final two.

    Really? How many MPs fall into the category "I think I would hold my seat under Boris but not under AN Other"?

    Once you start looking at their majorities and their political sympathies you're in the low teens at a maximum.
    It depends how bad things get! If our polling deteriorates further the numbers will grow.

    For the 200-odd who don’t have to worry, principles will matter more. There are plenty of ERGers within that group who will go for the most viable Brexit candidate, which all polling suggests would be Boris.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,584
    Bollocks to Brexit and Burkas. This is the most interesting thing you will read today.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322240/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,219
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
    My parents used to tell me I want doesn't get. Someone should tell Boris.
    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Britain is in an almost wartime situation. Boris is the kind of politician who might just prosper as a charismatic wartime leader, whereas he flounders with the tedium of more ordinary ministerial politics.
    Maybe. When asked the majority of people don't care for the face covering garments. It's not British, it says you don't want to be a part of our society and the implicit message is that men would be unable to control themselves should the face be disclosed, evidence for which is somewhat limited. I really wish the multitudes of muslim women marched through the BBC yesterday to explain how this is a part of their faith and should be respected were capable of reflecting, if only for a moment, what we might think of such attitudes and desire to keep themselves apart. If they want to live in this society they really should consider its social norms.

    But having said all that I really can't see Boris storming No 10 on the back of this, especially when his position was that he would not in fact ban them. It's a good going silly season story that has filled hours of empty time on the media. Other than demonstrating his undoubted skill in stirring up trouble I don't see a massive upside for Boris.
  • DavidL said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
    My parents used to tell me I want doesn't get. Someone should tell Boris.
    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Britain is in an almost wartime situation. Boris is the kind of politician who might just prosper as a charismatic wartime leader, whereas he flounders with the tedium of more ordinary ministerial politics.
    Maybe. When asked the majority of people don't care for the face covering garments. It's not British, it says you don't want to be a part of our society and the implicit message is that men would be unable to control themselves should the face be disclosed, evidence for which is somewhat limited. I really wish the multitudes of muslim women marched through the BBC yesterday to explain how this is a part of their faith and should be respected were capable of reflecting, if only for a moment, what we might think of such attitudes and desire to keep themselves apart. If they want to live in this society they really should consider its social norms.

    But having said all that I really can't see Boris storming No 10 on the back of this, especially when his position was that he would not in fact ban them. It's a good going silly season story that has filled hours of empty time on the media. Other than demonstrating his undoubted skill in stirring up trouble I don't see a massive upside for Boris.
    My understanding is that the burqa is not part of the Muslim faith but a cultural feature.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,219

    DavidL said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    It is not the far right Bannon party.

    The man who wants to be the next leader is a Bannonite
    My parents used to tell me I want doesn't get. Someone should tell Boris.
    I think Boris has a real chance now. His niqab/burqa thing is POPULAR. People hate these "garments". Nearly 60% of the country would ban them altogether - i.e. are further to the right than Nigel Farage, on this issue.

    Britain is in an almost wartime situation. Boris is the kind of politician who might just prosper as a charismatic wartime leader, whereas he flounders with the tedium of more ordinary ministerial politics.
    Maybe. When asked the majority of people don't care for the face covering garments. It's not British, it says you don't want to be a part of our society and the implicit message is that men would be unable to control themselves should the face be disclosed, evidence for which is somewhat limited. I really wish the multitudes of muslim women marched through the BBC yesterday to explain how this is a part of their faith and should be respected were capable of reflecting, if only for a moment, what we might think of such attitudes and desire to keep themselves apart. If they want to live in this society they really should consider its social norms.

    But having said all that I really can't see Boris storming No 10 on the back of this, especially when his position was that he would not in fact ban them. It's a good going silly season story that has filled hours of empty time on the media. Other than demonstrating his undoubted skill in stirring up trouble I don't see a massive upside for Boris.
    My understanding is that the burqa is not part of the Muslim faith but a cultural feature.
    The Muslim requirement of both men and women is to dress modestly. After that it is all culture. The fact that more Muslim women are opting (or being encouraged, who knows?) to apply a culture more commonly found in Afghanistan and rural Pakistan to the streets of Britain is yet another disappointing aspect of the insane policy of multiculturalism.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,607
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I read this question is am I willing to be blackmailed into doing something I really don't want to do by a bunch of largely retired Irish terrorists? The answer, of course, is hell no.

    The logic behind the question is are you committed to achieving peace at any price, any price at all? The answer to that if people think logically about it is always going to be no.

    Of course I want a solution to leaving that minimises the risk of terrorism once again starting up on these shores. I agree with the observations of @Richard_Nabavi on this. In a deal or no deal scenario we will continue to have different laws, different tax rates and different duties on either side of the border as we do today. If we don't enforce the border there will be some adverse tax implications, as there are today. We can live with that. If the EU or Eire can't that is a matter for them but I suspect they will. If they choose not to and this upsets some ex IRA then that would be unfortunate but it sure isn't the basis on which we can determine our policy.

    Again, you’re ignoring all the other polling I refer to that undermines your heavy rewriting of the poll responses. Their is no warrant for not treating this polling literally.
    With respect, you are the one that is misreading it. You are misreading it because Brexit has become a monomania with you. The vast majority just don't see it like that but that does not mean they are willing to be pushed around for the reasons I have explained.
    I have a clear and coherent explanation why a majority of English Leavers see Scottish independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit. Clearly it has nothing to do with Northern Irish terrorism. I await yours with interest.
    It can only be a good thing for Scotland, independence and back in EU is the likely outcome and it cannot come soon enough.
    I completely disagree with that Malcolm but if the majority of Scots think that way then that is our choice and it really isn't obvious why the English should abrogate their decision about membership of the EU to Scots. This is where Alastair is going wrong.
    Totally agree David , but neither should Scotland be forced out of EU by England , we wanted to stay and not only are we going to be taken out , Westminster is also taking over all the devolved powers. Democracy is dead in the UK and I for one want out of it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,607
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I read this question is am I willing to be blackmailed into doing something I really don't want to do by a bunch of largely retired Irish terrorists? The answer, of course, is hell no.

    The logic behind the question is are you committed to achieving peace at any price, any price at all? The answer to that if people think logically about it is always going to be no.

    Of course I want a solution to leaving that minimises the risk of terrorism once again starting up on these shores. I agree with the observations of @Richard_Nabavi on this. In a deal or no deal scenario we will continue to have different laws, different tax rates and different duties on either side of the border as we do today. If we don't enforce the border there will be some adverse tax implications, as there are today. We can live with that. If the EU or Eire can't that is a matter for them but I suspect they will. If they choose not to and this upsets some ex IRA then that would be unfortunate but it sure isn't the basis on which we can determine our policy.

    Again, you’re ignoring all the other polling I refer to that undermines your heavy rewriting of the poll responses. Their is no warrant for not treating this polling literally.
    With respect, you are the one that is misreading it. You are misreading it because Brexit has become a monomania with you. The vast majority just don't see it like that but that does not mean they are willing to be pushed around for the reasons I have explained.
    I have a clear and coherent explanation why a majority of English Leavers see Scottish independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit. Clearly it has nothing to do with Northern Irish terrorism. I await yours with interest.
    It can only be a good thing for Scotland, independence and back in EU is the likely outcome and it cannot come soon enough.
    Given over a third of even SNP voters voted Leave there is no guarantee even an independent Scotland would rejoin the EU at most maybe the single market.


    After all what is the logic of swapping London for Brussels? If devolution is not enough for you and you want full independence logically you go for the whole hog
    Scotland voted to remain , your obsession with SNP blinds you to reality.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,607
    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I read this question is am I willing to be blackmailed into doing something I really don't want to do by a bunch of largely retired Irish terrorists? The answer, of course, is hell no.

    The logic behind the question is are you committed to achieving peace at any price, any price at all? The answer to that if people think logically about it is always going to be no.

    Again, you’re ignoring all the other polling I refer to that undermines your heavy rewriting of the poll responses. Their is no warrant for not treating this polling literally.
    With respect, you are the one that is misreading it. You are misreading it because Brexit has become a monomania with you. The vast majority just don't see it like that but that does not mean they are willing to be pushed around for the reasons I have explained.
    I have a clear and coherent explanation why a majority of English Leavers see Scottish independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit. Clearly it has nothing to do with Northern Irish terrorism. I await yours with interest.
    It is the same point Alastair. People are not willing to be bullied. They (correctly) believe that such a scenario is unlikely but they are not willing to change their conclusion because of such a theoretical risk. Unless you are willing to surrender all decisions to others, particularly unreasonable others, such a conclusion is inevitable. I suspect people are being misled by the question into believing that this is the hypothetical forced choice. If they weren't the percentages would surely be higher.

    Why would a Labour voter in Scotland continue to back the Union in the face of an unelectable Labour party and a Conservative party entirely dominated by right wing English nationalists? That is where we are going, David.

    Nationalism needs to be defeated north and south of the border, probably at the same time. Both movements fed off each other.
    There are no nationalist issues north of the border , the jingoism is all south my friend. You are confusing yourself between National and Nationalists I am afraid, common misconception down south.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,607
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I read this question is am I willing to be blackmailed into doing something I really don't want to do by a bunch of largely retired Irish terrorists? The answer, of course, is hell no.

    The logic behind the question is are you committed to achieving peace policy.

    Again, you’re ignoring all the other polling I refer to that undermines your heavy rewriting of the poll responses. Their is no warrant for not treating this polling literally.
    With respect, you are the one that is misreading it. You are misreading ns I have explained.
    I have a clear and coherent explanation why a majority of English Leavers see Scottish independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit. Clearly it has nothing to do with Northern Irish terrorism. I await yours with interest.
    It is the same point Alastair. People are not willing to be bullied. They (correctly) believe that such a scenario is unlikely but they are not willing to 't the percentages would surely be higher.

    Why would a Labour voter in Scotland continue to back the Union in the face of an unelectable Labour party and a Conservative party entirely dominated by right wing English nationalists? That is where we are going, David.

    Many Labour voters in Scotland voted Tory in 2017 to back the Union which is why the SNP lost over a third of their seats

    No, they voted against the SNP. They did not vote for the English Nationalist party, which the Conservative party is now well down the path to becoming. Indeed, you expect an English nationalist to become the party’s next leader.



    The SNP would love a referendum on Boris Johnson!

    Yougov had a Tories under Boris on the same in Scotland as Cameron got in 2010 4 years before 55% of Scots voted for the Union with Scottish Labour close to 30% and the SNP unchanged.

    Most Scottish domestic policy is now decided at Holyrood anyway not Westminster regardless of the UK PM it is the FM who decides Scottish domestic policy
    Bollox, the FM gets to spend the allocated pocket money , most powers are reserved to Westminster. Just today 12 authors refused visas to come and speak at Edinburgh International book festival. Some cretin in London decides who is allowed to and who does not visit Scotland.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,607
    tlg86 said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

    Anyone know any Christian women who are forced to wear a crucifix when they leave the house ?

    Sell your Ruth for leader shares..

    I had Sky News on this morning and heard this story. The presenter didn't name Davidson and instead simply described her as a "Senior Tory". So I looked it up and found out it was Davidson.

    This made me ask, was she not named because people wouldn't know who she was; or was she not named because Sky know that it is a f****** stupid comment. My money is on the latter.
    She is a stupid duffer so no surprise, a Westminster sock puppet.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,668
    Apropos to SeanT's remark, the wearing of face masks (whatever you call 'em)
    should be I.L.L.E.G.A.L. while driving.
  • It will het worse when the other EU members cut Britain loose and she becomes a large non-iceberg floating down to the tropics where the soil will disperse in the ocean but Brits stay afloat because alcohol is lighter than water. A blob does not need a government nor deserves it.
This discussion has been closed.