He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
The then famous “West Lothian Question”, asked many times but never given a satisfactory answer.
It was a good question. It deserves a good answer and not to be brushed off because it was awkward.
Yet we have a PM with precisely the opposite core competence.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
Does anyone blame a particular politician or government for the formation of the Irish Free State? Clearly that too had been brewing for decades, with Irish Home Rule paralysing several governments.
The "Anyone But Trump" vote will be a powerful motivator of enthusiasm.
Joe Biden has the advantage of being hard to see as a threat. He isn't a great candidate, but there isn't much that would frighten blue collar Americans.
Sometimes we miss the obvious when obsessed with what happened last time. I don't think Trump can pull off a repeat of 2016. He is a known factor now. Biden is leading by 8 points in the polls, and that seems to be increasing slowly.
I tbink we can believe the polls* and that Trump 2020 will compare to 2016 as Corbyn 2019 did to 2017, with abject defeat. Indeed it probably needs to be a landslide to prevent the result being challenged.
* 3 months for these to change of course...
I 100% agree and will go one step further.
Before the 2019 election I said that it needed to be a landslide for the sake of the country to say to the Labour Party that they had to change. That a continuity Corbyn "one more heave" candidate was not what was needed if they want to be taken seriously.
The same needs to happen in the United States of America. For the sake of the country Biden needs to win a landslide. The GOP needs to see clearly and unambiguously that Trump was a terrible, catastrophic mistake. The GOP needs a tremendous wake up call like Corbyn19, Foot83, Dukakis88 etc so that next primary season if a Trump-style candidate is running the voters look back at 2020 and say "never again".
Sometimes an election defeat has to hurt to make you think and realise what needs to be done next. That was 2019 election night for many Labourites. For those still voting GOP I want the result in November to hurt them.
Don’t forget Major1997.
I didn't include Major in my list because I'm not entirely convinced that lessons were learnt in the 1997 defeat.
Lessons learnt: Foot83: Don't be so extreme far left, expel Militant Tendency Dukakis88: Take Laura Norder seriously. Corbyn19: Deal with the antisemites . . . waiting to see if any more lessons are learnt.
But for Major the response by the Tories seemed to be basically "oh well, we had a good run for 18 years and Blair is very popular, lets just wait until Blair isn't as popular and then we can naturally return to government". If there was much in the way of introspection and lesson learning in the Hague years I'm not sure what it was - I never saw it! It took until Cameron came around for that to seriously happen.
Now that worries me.
Cameron's solution was to morph into Blair. We don't want any Labour leader morphing into Johnson!
You dont think Starmer might put on a few pounds, mess up his hair and...no, he will never mess up his hair, it's true.
You have it the wrong way round. It is not that SKS needs to emulate Boris but that just as Cameron won by following Blair, so Boris won by morphing into Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris won by lifting all the popular parts of Corbyn's 2017 platform (including shooting rather than hunting foxes!).
Increase Income Tax at the top Increase Company taxes Tax the City Water industry nationalistation Fund Public Ownership
Which of them did Boris adopt?
Have you forgotten the Cabinet call-and-response? 20,000 new police officers (not by coincidence, the number May and Cameron cut). 40 new hospitals. 50,000 new nurses.
Not to mention an end to austerity. Or increased investment in schools, railways, buses (why do you think Corbyn kept asking about them at PMQs?), public services and infrastructure (including broadband!!).
I don't see any of those pledges in the 2017 manifesto. There was one for 10,000 new Police is the closest to any of that.
Spending money on public services is something all parties want to do when they can afford it. An end to austerity was due because the budget had been brought under control, prior Tory policy before the deficit needed dealing with had been to "share the proceeds of growth" remember? There's nothing Corbynite about that.
So other than spending money . . . something literally every government since the beginning of time has done . . . what do you think is from Corbyn?
More from the 2017 manifesto: The abolition of tuition fees? The end of the bedroom tax? 100,000 new council homes per year? Freezing the state pension age?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
The "Anyone But Trump" vote will be a powerful motivator of enthusiasm.
Joe Biden has the advantage of being hard to see as a threat. He isn't a great candidate, but there isn't much that would frighten blue collar Americans.
Sometimes we miss the obvious when obsessed with what happened last time. I don't think Trump can pull off a repeat of 2016. He is a known factor now. Biden is leading by 8 points in the polls, and that seems to be increasing slowly.
I tbink we can believe the polls* and that Trump 2020 will compare to 2016 as Corbyn 2019 did to 2017, with abject defeat. Indeed it probably needs to be a landslide to prevent the result being challenged.
* 3 months for these to change of course...
I 100% agree and will go one step further.
Before the 2019 election I said that it needed to be a landslide for the sake of the country to say to the Labour Party that they had to change. That a continuity Corbyn "one more heave" candidate was not what was needed if they want to be taken seriously.
The same needs to happen in the United States of America. For the sake of the country Biden needs to win a landslide. The GOP needs to see clearly and unambiguously that Trump was a terrible, catastrophic mistake. The GOP needs a tremendous wake up call like Corbyn19, Foot83, Dukakis88 etc so that next primary season if a Trump-style candidate is running the voters look back at 2020 and say "never again".
Sometimes an election defeat has to hurt to make you think and realise what needs to be done next. That was 2019 election night for many Labourites. For those still voting GOP I want the result in November to hurt them.
Don’t forget Major1997.
I didn't include Major in my list because I'm not entirely convinced that lessons were learnt in the 1997 defeat.
Lessons learnt: Foot83: Don't be so extreme far left, expel Militant Tendency Dukakis88: Take Laura Norder seriously. Corbyn19: Deal with the antisemites . . . waiting to see if any more lessons are learnt.
But for Major the response by the Tories seemed to be basically "oh well, we had a good run for 18 years and Blair is very popular, lets just wait until Blair isn't as popular and then we can naturally return to government". If there was much in the way of introspection and lesson learning in the Hague years I'm not sure what it was - I never saw it! It took until Cameron came around for that to seriously happen.
Now that worries me.
Cameron's solution was to morph into Blair. We don't want any Labour leader morphing into Johnson!
You dont think Starmer might put on a few pounds, mess up his hair and...no, he will never mess up his hair, it's true.
You have it the wrong way round. It is not that SKS needs to emulate Boris but that just as Cameron won by following Blair, so Boris won by morphing into Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris won by lifting all the popular parts of Corbyn's 2017 platform (including shooting rather than hunting foxes!).
Increase Income Tax at the top Increase Company taxes Tax the City Water industry nationalistation Fund Public Ownership
Which of them did Boris adopt?
Have you forgotten the Cabinet call-and-response? 20,000 new police officers (not by coincidence, the number May and Cameron cut). 40 new hospitals. 50,000 new nurses.
Not to mention an end to austerity. Or increased investment in schools, railways, buses (why do you think Corbyn kept asking about them at PMQs?), public services and infrastructure (including broadband!!).
By 2024 the mugs who are currently still inclined to take Johnson at his word will recognise the emptiness of past unfulfilled commitments from him and be strongly inclined to dismiss every rhetorical electoral promise from him through the lens of "there he goes again".
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
By that logic, it was the 1997-2010 Labour Government that 'lost the EU', given that its policies sowed the seeds of discontent that came to full bloom in the years following their loss of power.
So it was actually Tony Blair who took us out of the EU. QED
Certainly the Lisbon treaty not being subject to a referendum caused a lot of grief. Even David Cameron took a hit on the rather unreasonable grounds that he “broke his promise” to have a vote on it, a promise made when it looked like there would be a GE before it was ratified.
I seem to remember that in an effort to capitalise on the discontent one party went into the 2010 election with the promise of an in/out referendum on the EU...
While this is Johnson's usual execrable nonsense; do not underestimate its potency. He is telling the English a story about themselves that they very much like.
When visiting Scotland, a prime minister should be telling the Scots a story about themselves that they very much like.
Johnson is addressing the wrong audience in the wrong country.
When 98.3% of his MPs come from outside that country, it looks like he's addressing precisely the correct audience...
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
Does anyone blame a particular politician or government for the formation of the Irish Free State? Clearly that too had been brewing for decades, with Irish Home Rule paralysing several governments.
I think one can blame Carson for N. Ireland. The island of Ireland is a logical national unit, and it should be remembered that a number of early (in the modern political sense) Nationalists were Protestant..... Wolfe Tone, for example.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
Does anyone blame a particular politician or government for the formation of the Irish Free State? Clearly that too had been brewing for decades, with Irish Home Rule paralysing several governments.
And who historians come to blame isn't necessarily who gets the punishment from voters
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
Trump sending a surge of "federal agents" to cities across US.
What's the betting these paramilitaries are enforcing "law and order" around polling stations come November?
Yup. Democrats need to worry less about Trump not accepting defeat and more about him doing whatever he can - however violent and illegal - to prevent that defeat.
Trump will not allow a free and fair election. Too much is at stake.
My fear is that Democrats are not mentally prepared for this. They still do not get who they are dealing with. They will affect surprise and outrage, but it will be too late.
And they will take some comfort in calling Trump voters stupid and bemoaning that their candidate was old and boring so that they can avoid the reality that their election was stolen.
Edit: Forgot Kasich isn't governor any more
no doubt due to their weird habit of referring to people by title even after leaving office.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
I wish him the best, though he seems less effective there than he undoubtedly was in the red wall.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
Does anyone blame a particular politician or government for the formation of the Irish Free State? Clearly that too had been brewing for decades, with Irish Home Rule paralysing several governments.
And who historians come to blame isn't necessarily who gets the punishment from voters
Quite. Question of time anyway. People do blame individual politicians for such things, as with Brexit, but come 2116 historians will have argued away most suggestions of individual impact.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
It is intriguing to compare with the establishment view on party donations, where being eligible through British nationality is all that is required. As always, spurious justifications for things the establishment does wrong are easy to find.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
The "Anyone But Trump" vote will be a powerful motivator of enthusiasm.
Joe Biden has the advantage of being hard to see as a threat. He isn't a great candidate, but there isn't much that would frighten blue collar Americans.
Sometimes we miss the obvious when obsessed with what happened last time. I don't think Trump can pull off a repeat of 2016. He is a known factor now. Biden is leading by 8 points in the polls, and that seems to be increasing slowly.
I tbink we can believe the polls* and that Trump 2020 will compare to 2016 as Corbyn 2019 did to 2017, with abject defeat. Indeed it probably needs to be a landslide to prevent the result being challenged.
* 3 months for these to change of course...
I 100% agree and will go one step further.
Before the 2019 election I said that it needed to be a landslide for the sake of the country to say to the Labour Party that they had to change. That a continuity Corbyn "one more heave" candidate was not what was needed if they want to be taken seriously.
The same needs to happen in the United States of America. For the sake of the country Biden needs to win a landslide. The GOP needs to see clearly and unambiguously that Trump was a terrible, catastrophic mistake. The GOP needs a tremendous wake up call like Corbyn19, Foot83, Dukakis88 etc so that next primary season if a Trump-style candidate is running the voters look back at 2020 and say "never again".
Sometimes an election defeat has to hurt to make you think and realise what needs to be done next. That was 2019 election night for many Labourites. For those still voting GOP I want the result in November to hurt them.
Don’t forget Major1997.
I didn't include Major in my list because I'm not entirely convinced that lessons were learnt in the 1997 defeat.
Lessons learnt: Foot83: Don't be so extreme far left, expel Militant Tendency Dukakis88: Take Laura Norder seriously. Corbyn19: Deal with the antisemites . . . waiting to see if any more lessons are learnt.
But for Major the response by the Tories seemed to be basically "oh well, we had a good run for 18 years and Blair is very popular, lets just wait until Blair isn't as popular and then we can naturally return to government". If there was much in the way of introspection and lesson learning in the Hague years I'm not sure what it was - I never saw it! It took until Cameron came around for that to seriously happen.
Now that worries me.
Cameron's solution was to morph into Blair. We don't want any Labour leader morphing into Johnson!
You dont think Starmer might put on a few pounds, mess up his hair and...no, he will never mess up his hair, it's true.
You have it the wrong way round. It is not that SKS needs to emulate Boris but that just as Cameron won by following Blair, so Boris won by morphing into Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris won by lifting all the popular parts of Corbyn's 2017 platform (including shooting rather than hunting foxes!).
Increase Income Tax at the top Increase Company taxes Tax the City Water industry nationalistation Fund Public Ownership
Which of them did Boris adopt?
Have you forgotten the Cabinet call-and-response? 20,000 new police officers (not by coincidence, the number May and Cameron cut). 40 new hospitals. 50,000 new nurses.
Not to mention an end to austerity. Or increased investment in schools, railways, buses (why do you think Corbyn kept asking about them at PMQs?), public services and infrastructure (including broadband!!).
I don't see any of those pledges in the 2017 manifesto. There was one for 10,000 new Police is the closest to any of that.
Spending money on public services is something all parties want to do when they can afford it. An end to austerity was due because the budget had been brought under control, prior Tory policy before the deficit needed dealing with had been to "share the proceeds of growth" remember? There's nothing Corbynite about that.
So other than spending money . . . something literally every government since the beginning of time has done . . . what do you think is from Corbyn?
More from the 2017 manifesto: The abolition of tuition fees? The end of the bedroom tax? 100,000 new council homes per year? Freezing the state pension age?
None of which refutes my point that CCHQ tested what worked from Corbyn's 2017 near-miss and Boris adopted it in 2019.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
The issue you have with that idea is Conservative commentators like HYUFD can claim with some justification that the headline says it wasn't Johnson who lost the Union. It doesn't even have to be a non-Conservative. It could be a Sunak Government from 2024 buckling under the pressure for SIndyref2. One will have to read further to pick out Johnson's role, and it's the headline that matters.
Without looking it up, how many here could name the PM that lost (most of) Ireland?
Really good point. Once Scotland is gone it will be foreign affairs, and PMs will be remembered for things that affect England - such as wrecking the economy and failing to save tens of thousands of lives.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
I'm drawing a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
Yeah, Blair may turn out to be the most influential PM in recent times. Just not in a good way.
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
A lot of the tipping-point-ish states are polling something like Biden +6, so I think there's a fairly easy-to-follow route to a Trump win consisting of Biden being at a similar electoral college disadvantage as Hillary plus a little bit more, and 3% of voters swinging from Dem to GOP for various reasons.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
In which case laws on protection of foreign involvement in our politics are meaningless.
Putin wants to give £100m to the govt? Home secretary has right to award anyone citizenship. Once a citizen they can pass on the money.
Nothing to see here gov.
* I accept if there was a much lower limit this would be less of a concern but I doubt there ever will be such a limit, whereas the parties might be able to agree on a definition of someone close to a foreign govt.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
It is intriguing to compare with the establishment view on party donations, where being eligible through British nationality is all that is required. As always, spurious justifications for things the establishment does wrong are easy to find.
Citizenship gives the right to donate but right to vote removed after 10 years out of the country. Unless right to donate goes as well.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
I'm drawing a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
Hmm. It certainly can be but I'm wary of this distinction that it's fine so long as it's for a state that doesn't currently exist.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
It is intriguing to compare with the establishment view on party donations, where being eligible through British nationality is all that is required. As always, spurious justifications for things the establishment does wrong are easy to find.
Citizenship gives the right to donate but right to vote removed after 10 years out of the country. Unless right to donate goes as well.
Wasn't the govt supposed to do something about the 10 year rule which disenfranchised lots of expats?
Wasn't the govt supposed to do something about the 10 year rule which disenfranchised lots of expats?
They promised to repeatedly, but then they did Brexit which makes anybody with a foreign connection vaguely suspicious, so I'm not sure they'll get it done unless they can work out a way to use it to add additional forms of ratfuckery.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
The issue you have with that idea is Conservative commentators like HYUFD can claim with some justification that the headline says it wasn't Johnson who lost the Union. It doesn't even have to be a non-Conservative. It could be a Sunak Government from 2024 buckling under the pressure for SIndyref2. One will have to read further to pick out Johnson's role, and it's the headline that matters.
Without looking it up, how many here could name the PM that lost (most of) Ireland?
Really good point. Once Scotland is gone it will be foreign affairs, and PMs will be remembered for things that affect England - such as wrecking the economy and failing to save tens of thousands of lives.
He was right to say that too and it is all Tony Blair's fault. When the Prime Minister of the UK is also quintessentially the First Minister of England too then having a Scottish PM is not going to be popular. It wasn't and Brown was devastated in the election - and look at how Scotland played out in 2015 too.
Asymmetric devolution was utterly absurd. That Labour let Blair get away with it is insane. When Scotland goes independent (and I do now think it is when not if) then the fault lies squarely with Tony Blair.
If there had been an English Parliament created in 1997 then much of what has caused resentment on both sides could have been avoided. And if he wasn't prepared to create an English Parliament he shouldn't have created a Scottish one.
No he was not right. Rights or wrongs of the devolution arrangements any person eligible to be an MP would be acceptable to br PM.
It is intriguing to compare with the establishment view on party donations, where being eligible through British nationality is all that is required. As always, spurious justifications for things the establishment does wrong are easy to find.
Citizenship gives the right to donate but right to vote removed after 10 years out of the country. Unless right to donate goes as well.
Wasn't the govt supposed to do something about the 10 year rule which disenfranchised lots of expats?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
I'm drawing a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
Hmm. It certainly can be but I'm wary of this distinction that it's fine so long as it's for a state that doesn't currently exist.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
I think @rottenborough mentioned that Biden is a known entity so that reduces the risk of people voting for him. The problem with that argument is that the consensus now is there is a serious question over whether Biden lasts the whole term and so it is not just Biden that has to be credible but also his VP pick too. In this environment, that may be a serious problem.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
The issue you have with that idea is Conservative commentators like HYUFD can claim with some justification that the headline says it wasn't Johnson who lost the Union. It doesn't even have to be a non-Conservative. It could be a Sunak Government from 2024 buckling under the pressure for SIndyref2. One will have to read further to pick out Johnson's role, and it's the headline that matters.
Without looking it up, how many here could name the PM that lost (most of) Ireland?
If you are referring to the IFS, Lloyd George.
If you are referring to the creation of a separate coëval Irish Head of State, Stanley Baldwin.
If you are referring to the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Clement Attlee.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
I'm drawing a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
Hmm. It certainly can be but I'm wary of this distinction that it's fine so long as it's for a state that doesn't currently exist.
I'm not saying that. I'm drawing what I think is a meaningful distinction - between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state - and opining that (2) is usually bad news and sometimes very bad news. (1) is more likely to be benign but of course it might not be. It depends on the sort of state being proposed and the methods employed.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Yes, but he can't.
A Little Englander like BoZo can never persuade Scottish nationalists that nationalism is a bad thing.
Yet another part of his job is he is manifestly not up to.
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
The issue you have with that idea is Conservative commentators like HYUFD can claim with some justification that the headline says it wasn't Johnson who lost the Union. It doesn't even have to be a non-Conservative. It could be a Sunak Government from 2024 buckling under the pressure for SIndyref2. One will have to read further to pick out Johnson's role, and it's the headline that matters.
Without looking it up, how many here could name the PM that lost (most of) Ireland?
If you are referring to the IFS, Lloyd George.
If you are referring to the creation of a separate coëval Irish Head of State, Stanley Baldwin.
If you are referring to the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Clement Attlee.
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
I think @rottenborough mentioned that Biden is a known entity so that reduces the risk of people voting for him. The problem with that argument is that the consensus now is there is a serious question over whether Biden lasts the whole term and so it is not just Biden that has to be credible but also his VP pick too. In this environment, that may be a serious problem.
Yes, that's a good reason to go extra-safe with the pick and avoid anything that would feed the story they're trying to tell about EXTREME RADICAL DEMOCRATS. Stay away from Kamala, because she's from California, and be a little bit nervous about Susan Rice because Benghazi.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
In which case laws on protection of foreign involvement in our politics are meaningless.
Putin wants to give £100m to the govt? Home secretary has right to award anyone citizenship. Once a citizen they can pass on the money.
Nothing to see here gov.
* I accept if there was a much lower limit this would be less of a concern but I doubt there ever will be such a limit, whereas the parties might be able to agree on a definition of someone close to a foreign govt.
I take your point but you are either a citizen or you aren't and there should be rules and scrutiny over who is allowed to be a citizen.
I can't see that you can allow someone to vote yet not donate. It is either both or neither.
The problem goes away if you only allow say a maximum donation of £10,000 (picked out of thin air by me)
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
It's been said before but an unenthusiastic vote for Biden counts for the same as a charged-up one for Trump. (Or a fiery one against the GOP.)
It's like that weird line from the recent Steve Jobs biopic: "Coach lands on the runway at the same time as first ckass."
BoZo really doesn't want to be the PM that "lost" Scotland, but he is working hard to make it happen.
Boris will be the culprit but he won't be at the scene of the crime; it'll be part of his poisonous legacy.
Indeed.
I’ve made this point to @HYUFD before. Boris (and the Conservative Party) does not want to be the “Prime Minister who lost the union” but even if it happens under a subsequent Starmer government, I reckon that the history books would place the blame at The Conservatives 2015-2024.
The issue you have with that idea is Conservative commentators like HYUFD can claim with some justification that the headline says it wasn't Johnson who lost the Union. It doesn't even have to be a non-Conservative. It could be a Sunak Government from 2024 buckling under the pressure for SIndyref2. One will have to read further to pick out Johnson's role, and it's the headline that matters.
Without looking it up, how many here could name the PM that lost (most of) Ireland?
If you are referring to the IFS, Lloyd George.
If you are referring to the creation of a separate coëval Irish Head of State, Stanley Baldwin.
If you are referring to the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Clement Attlee.
I would have been worried if you couldn’t.
The creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 was one of the key reasons for Lloyd George’s fall. True, Chanak didn’t help, nor did the fact that the Tories unexpectedly won Newport in their own strength while their increasingly out-of-touch leadership claimed it was necessary to stick with Lloyd George to keep out Labour. But neither of those would have mattered nearly as much had the Unionist Party not been forced, by their own leaders Chamberlain and Birkenhead, to accept not just Home Rule but something very close to independence for Ireland.
Of course, the passions Ireland aroused in British politics, like those over Free Trade, are more or less forgotten now. But they made Europe, which in time will probably come to be seen as an at best erratic response to the idea of polarisation prevalent in the Cold War, seem like a teddy bears’ picnic.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Yes, but he can't.
A Little Englander like BoZo can never persuade Scottish nationalists that nationalism is a bad thing.
Yet another part of his job is he is manifestly not up to.
He doesn't need to "persuade Scottish nationalists that nationalism is a bad thing". He just needs to stimulate the unionist sentiments of non-nationalists.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
On topic. Yes, it's going to be a Silent Majority election and the "SM" have had enough of President Trump. He needs to become a different person for the next 3 months. Bank his base and attempt to convince others that contrary to the evidence of the last 4 years he is not such a dick after all. It will not be easy but he ought to at least try. It's only chance.
Just as Biden has been around long enough for people to know him, I think the same is true now of Trump. He can't change.
I don't think he can either. In which case I don't see a route for him that does not involve electoral fraud on a colossal scale. Hopefully democracy in the US of A has not been denuded to the extent necessary for this to happen. Can't see it myself. I'm sure there will be dirty tricks galore but not enough to swing the result.
I think @rottenborough mentioned that Biden is a known entity so that reduces the risk of people voting for him. The problem with that argument is that the consensus now is there is a serious question over whether Biden lasts the whole term and so it is not just Biden that has to be credible but also his VP pick too. In this environment, that may be a serious problem.
Yes, that's a good reason to go extra-safe with the pick and avoid anything that would feed the story they're trying to tell about EXTREME RADICAL DEMOCRATS. Stay away from Kamala, because she's from California, and be a little bit nervous about Susan Rice because Benghazi.
🦆🦆🦆
Hillary
But seriously if people view the VP as a president in waiting then the Democrats have a problem, because there aren't many uncontroversial candidates with a high profile. Running someone untested on the big stage as heir apparent is a risk.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
It is very funny seeing lefties (and an "ex Tory") who don't view Starmer as the same as Corbyn thinking that Johnson is an extension of Cameron and May.
There's a very clear and simple difference between Johnson and Starmer: Johnson on principle resigned from May's Cabinet and fought against her in public for a year going against her policies. Starmer stayed loyally in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet throughout and never publicly demurred against him.
Logically 2019 is every bit as much if not more of a 'year zero' for Johnson than 2020 is for Starmer.
So the chart above uses another measure – how voters respond to favourability questions when generally there are two negative options unfavourable and very unfavourable. It is that latter metric that could be important.
Has this metric predicted past Presidential victories?
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
He doesn't need to "persuade Scottish nationalists that nationalism is a bad thing". He just needs to stimulate the unionist sentiments of non-nationalists.
But seriously if people view the VP as a president in waiting then the Democrats have a problem, because there aren't many uncontroversial candidates with a high profile. Running someone untested on the big stage as heir apparent is a big risk.
Well, if it's a problem then 🍚 is definitely sufficiently tested, and 👮♀️ would be good enough. However I think there's a limit to how far the voters expect the VP to be Ready On Day 1 or whatever - I mean, Obama was a one-term senator, Trump was a reality TV host, they're not that bothered about experience at the *top* of the ticket, let alone the person who may well end up with the job a year or two later on according to our actuarial tables...
So I think although Biden's age and the failure of attacks on him to get traction makes the VP more important than they usually would be, it's more important to have a good background story and a resistance to the main attack lines, even if they're a little bit untested.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Exactly. And when GBrown took over from TBlair it was a whole new administration, nothing to do with the previous Labour govt. Right?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
His tweet is a little confusing. I initially read it as saying that he is retweeting because of advice from the current leadership.
However, it looks like he may be claiming his previous criticism of Panorama was because of what he was told by the Corbyn team, and he's now recanting. Wonder if that was part of the court deal, or if he's been warned he may still be taken to court separately?
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Exactly. And when GBrown took over from TBlair it was a whole new administration, nothing to do with the previous Labour govt. Right?
It was a new government yes, but Brown had been Chancellor throughout and that was where Blair's government screwed the country the most with its overspending so he doesn't escape responsibility.
Had Brown resigned in protest from Blair's government . . . or in a parallel universe where Robin Cook didn't die and he won the leadership election to succeed Blair instead of Brown then it quite clearly would have been more of a change.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
With respect: it absolutely astounds me that a serious PBer could assert that Scotland has one-party politics. It has had a coalition or minority government in Holyrood ever since the reconvention of the Parliament in 1997, with the exception of one term (5 years IIRC). Indeed Labour and the LDs designed the unique modified d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim (the occasional majority government being unplanned).
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some principles that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Off topic, but I’m currently experiencing the frustrations of job seeking. I did two full days of work for a law firm as part of the recruitment process, but unfortunately did not progress. That’s fine, but I have been given zero feedback, despite asking for it.
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
With respect: it absolutely astounds me that a serious PBer could assert that Scotland has one-party politics. It has had a coalition or minority government in Holyrood ever since the reconvention of the Parliament in 1997, with the exception of one term (5 years IIRC). Indeed Labour and the LDs designed the unique modified d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim (the occasional majority government being unplanned).
While admitting I am no expert on this, I thought Salmond’s government from 2007 to 2011 was a minority government with what amounted to tacit confidence and supply from other parties, and that Sturgeon has the support of the Greens but is not in formal coalition?
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
Blame? I think the economic response has been excellent.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some principles that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
Yes, to the extent that they had planning for the virus it was unfortunately a plan for the wrong disease, and the government boffins' refusal to let that small detail dissuade them from following the plan seems to have been part of what made the initial response such a shitshow.
As far as the economic effects go we had a response that was pioneered in China in January 2020, adapted to work for democracies in February 2020 and the British finally cottoned on to late in March 2020, so it's hard to see how it would have improved things to have an economic plan based on how a junior civil service wonk thought you might end up responding to a virus when they were asked about it in 2016.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
The criticism today was about the economic response
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some principles that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
Blame? I think the economic response has been excellent.
Yes, "lessons learned" is always about what went wrong but it would also be good to learn lessons from how a government with an epic history of IT failures apparently managed to get the systems working for the furlough scheme in about 25 minutes.
PS Is everyone over there still doing the weekly Clap For HMRC?
Comments
Spending money on public services is something all parties want to do when they can afford it. An end to austerity was due because the budget had been brought under control, prior Tory policy before the deficit needed dealing with had been to "share the proceeds of growth" remember? There's nothing Corbynite about that.
So other than spending money . . . something literally every government since the beginning of time has done . . . what do you think is from Corbyn?
More from the 2017 manifesto:
The abolition of tuition fees?
The end of the bedroom tax?
100,000 new council homes per year?
Freezing the state pension age?
I seem to remember that in an effort to capitalise on the discontent one party went into the 2010 election with the promise of an in/out referendum on the EU...
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
Putin wants to give £100m to the govt? Home secretary has right to award anyone citizenship. Once a citizen they can pass on the money.
Nothing to see here gov.
* I accept if there was a much lower limit this would be less of a concern but I doubt there ever will be such a limit, whereas the parties might be able to agree on a definition of someone close to a foreign govt.
If you are referring to the creation of a separate coëval Irish Head of State, Stanley Baldwin.
If you are referring to the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Clement Attlee.
A Little Englander like BoZo can never persuade Scottish nationalists that nationalism is a bad thing.
Yet another part of his job is he is manifestly not up to.
🦆🦆🦆
https://twitter.com/D_G_Alexander/status/1286217765171470337
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I can't see that you can allow someone to vote yet not donate. It is either both or neither.
The problem goes away if you only allow say a maximum donation of £10,000 (picked out of thin air by me)
It's like that weird line from the recent Steve Jobs biopic: "Coach lands on the runway at the same time as first ckass."
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Of course, the passions Ireland aroused in British politics, like those over Free Trade, are more or less forgotten now. But they made Europe, which in time will probably come to be seen as an at best erratic response to the idea of polarisation prevalent in the Cold War, seem like a teddy bears’ picnic.
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
But seriously if people view the VP as a president in waiting then the Democrats have a problem, because there aren't many uncontroversial candidates with a high profile. Running someone untested on the big stage as heir apparent is a risk.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
There's a very clear and simple difference between Johnson and Starmer: Johnson on principle resigned from May's Cabinet and fought against her in public for a year going against her policies. Starmer stayed loyally in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet throughout and never publicly demurred against him.
Logically 2019 is every bit as much if not more of a 'year zero' for Johnson than 2020 is for Starmer.
Has this metric predicted past Presidential victories?
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
So I think although Biden's age and the failure of attacks on him to get traction makes the VP more important than they usually would be, it's more important to have a good background story and a resistance to the main attack lines, even if they're a little bit untested.
However, it looks like he may be claiming his previous criticism of Panorama was because of what he was told by the Corbyn team, and he's now recanting. Wonder if that was part of the court deal, or if he's been warned he may still be taken to court separately?
Had Brown resigned in protest from Blair's government . . . or in a parallel universe where Robin Cook didn't die and he won the leadership election to succeed Blair instead of Brown then it quite clearly would have been more of a change.
https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1286242130609016832
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
As far as the economic effects go we had a response that was pioneered in China in January 2020, adapted to work for democracies in February 2020 and the British finally cottoned on to late in March 2020, so it's hard to see how it would have improved things to have an economic plan based on how a junior civil service wonk thought you might end up responding to a virus when they were asked about it in 2016.
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286104325635411968?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1285912208527040519?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286074145197961221?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286081493761167360?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286080982026723330?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286080219313471490?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286078603885715461?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286075642791043073?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1286074586765889536?s=20
PS Is everyone over there still doing the weekly Clap For HMRC?