politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More data from today’s Trump visit YouGov polling

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited February 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More data from today’s Trump visit YouGov polling

YouGov polling on how Brits would feel is measures similar to Trump's were brought in here. pic.twitter.com/732XOGj7Z2

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    edited February 2017
    Shocked, utterly shocked, that Kippers are the only voters as a majority who back this migrant ban, that is characterised as a Muslim ban.

    UTTERLY SHOCKED!
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited February 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Shocked, utterly shocked, that Kippers are the only voters as a majority who back this migrant ban, that is characterised as a Muslim ban.

    UTTERLY SHOCKED!

    I think even they would have been put off by the chaos of the implementation of the bloody thing. From the relative safety of the UK, they can prioritise (their) principle, whereas the Americans need be more concerned by practice. I mean, practise.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    edited February 2017
    Second! Like Remain... Oh well....
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Hostage situation in Istanbul: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38826984

  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    FPT:

    Do people believe this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy

    22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?

    Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.

    I don't see where the other 16 come from.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Shocked, utterly shocked, that Kippers are the only voters as a majority who back this migrant ban, that is characterised as a Muslim ban.

    UTTERLY SHOCKED!

    It does show that much of what drives anti migrant sentiment is non-EU migration.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.
  • Options
    NewsTakerNewsTaker Posts: 89
    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,625
    What is interesting* in the breakdowns is that the divide is clearer on party lines than on Brexit lines. The notion that Leave/Remain is the new Left/Right isn't borne out.

    *Well, not interesting to 99.99% of the public, but interesting on PB.
  • Options
    DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT:

    Do people believe this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy

    22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?

    Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.

    I don't see where the other 16 come from.

    What is the amendment?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans' views on Trump's travel ban:

    49% support
    41% against

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    FF43 said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    williamglenn said:

    Macron made his own luck by making a clean break with the Parti Socialiste. A lot could still change but it's looking good for him.

    There's something not quite right about Macron.

    " Macron is married to Brigitte Trogneux, who is 24 years older than him and was his former teacher in La Providence high school, Amiens. "

    I suspect there's an elephantine skeleton in the attic.
    It's an unusual relationship, certainly, but not one that is likely to rebound on him, I suspect. They are still together after more than twenty years, having married in the meantime. Anything bad is likely to have been superseded by time. They seem to have been pretty discreet throughout, but if there ever was an abuse of age and position, it would by his older teacher wife and not him
    The story's all in the public domain.

    His parents got very angry with the affair, but he did it anyway, and now they've been happily married.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    NewsTaker said:

    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.

    It's quite interesting. If I had to plot party strength it would be SNP-CON-LAB-LD.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    So it is "should go ahead" rather than support or "in favour of". Not the same at all.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    NewsTaker said:

    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.

    I think there will be a dozen Tory rebels, although it certainly would be less if they thought it made any difference. The amendments might get a bit complicated on the arithmetic though, I hope the whips are concentrating...
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    The FAR(AGE|RON) do feel like two physical particles. If they were ever to meet they would immediately explode, creating a enormous cloud of pure self-importance.


  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited February 2017
    DanSmith said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT:

    Do people believe this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy

    22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?

    Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.

    I don't see where the other 16 come from.

    What is the amendment?
    I'm sure it will appear at committee/report stage. It will basically say that if Parliament rejects the deal, it retains the option to stay in the EU as an alternative, rather than leaving on no terms. This is all dependent on the UK having the ability to unilaterally retract the Article 50 notification, which Jolyon Maugham is currently trying to establish through the ECJ via the Irish courts.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Shocked, utterly shocked, that Kippers are the only voters as a majority who back this migrant ban, that is characterised as a Muslim ban.

    UTTERLY SHOCKED!

    As a conservative I am more disappointed that more conservatives aren't disappointed/appalled. I am also surprised that Con is so close to all GB. Does this mean the other parties don't make much odds because almost everyone is Con these days? Hurray!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,625
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    Instead he can say that the LibDems are the party for anyone with a Nut allergy.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    dixiedean said:

    So it is "should go ahead" rather than support or "in favour of". Not the same at all.

    Indeed - use of the word "support" is very misleading.

  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    dixiedean said:

    So it is "should go ahead" rather than support or "in favour of". Not the same at all.

    Not exactly the same I agree, but the result does at least imply tacit approval IMO.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    NewsTaker said:

    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.

    I think there will be a dozen Tory rebels, although it certainly would be less if they thought it made any difference. The amendments might get a bit complicated on the arithmetic though, I hope the whips are concentrating...
    Today's votes are a sideshow. The crucial votes will be on amendments prior to the third reading.

    If the Government victories are narrow, the Lords will feel emboldened to propose more amendments and hold up the process.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    AndyJS said:

    Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans' views on Trump's travel ban:

    49% support
    41% against

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

    Given the massive misrepresentation/fake news about it - I wonder what the polling would be on the actual facts?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2017
    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    When deciding whether visas are needed for entry at all, and on granting visas, the UK discriminates heavily against people from Muslim countries. Is that wrong?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    SimonStClare said:

    dixiedean said:

    So it is "should go ahead" rather than support or "in favour of". Not the same at all.

    Not exactly the same I agree, but the result does at least imply tacit approval IMO.
    I think the visit should go ahead. (The consequences of withdrawing the offer would be severe). I do not offer approval (tacit or otherwise).
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    Agreed.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited February 2017
    Jonathan said:

    NewsTaker said:

    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.

    It's quite interesting. If I had to plot party strength it would be SNP-CON-LAB-LD.
    The SNP position is completely intellectually coherent, as is Ken Clarke. The Lib Dems were on the right side of the campaign, but I believe we should not oppose the article 50 bill - Sarah Olney can internally consistently oppose however the other eight voted for the bill.
    Personally I'd head through both lobbies on this, if I'd voted for the referendum bill.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    Corbyn's not the only friend of the IRA:

    The SNP MSP John Mason has caused outrage for suggesting that IRA terrorists who murdered three Scottish soldiers could be considered “freedom fighters”.

    Mr Mason has been condemned in Northern Ireland for the remarks, made on Twitter, after he was urged to support a campaign to bring the murderers to justice.

    The three soldiers - Dougald McCaughey, 23, and 17 and 18-year-old brothers John and Joseph McCaig - were serving in Northern Ireland with the Royal Highland Fusiliers.

    They were unarmed and in civilian clothes when they were enticed from a Belfast bar to a lonely spot on the outskirts of the city on March 10 1971, where they were shot dead by IRA members.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-msp-sparks-anger-over-ira-freedom-fighters-comment-1-4354887
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    The Vice President
    Here is the Video of 2006 were 45 Democrats Helped Unanimously Confirm #NeilGorsuch (incl. @SenSchumer, and Obama) https://t.co/yH7xoiOWtA
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    Who is the President of the United States.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    David Miliband still 20/1 on Betfair for the leadership!!

    They'll be toasting their king across the water for a little while yet :)
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    When deciding whether visas are needed for entry at all, and on granting visas, the UK discriminates heavily against people from Muslim countries. Is that wrong?

    The blanket ban is what is discriminatory: because you were born in Syria you cannot enter the US; full stop.

  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
    Hillary only tweeted once about Garland, Obama didn't try terribly hard either - I don't have much sympathy on this one for Dems.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    PlatoSaid said:

    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
    Hillary only tweeted once about Garland, Obama didn't try terribly hard either - I don't have much sympathy on this one for Dems.

    There's a surprise :-D

  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited February 2017
    TOPPING said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    Who is the President of the United States.
    Sadly. Thankfully Farage has failed seven times in his pursuit to become an MP. I guess that's the difference between the two countries.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT:

    Do people believe this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy

    22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?

    Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.

    I don't see where the other 16 come from.

    I did a list last week of them but can't be arsed searching for the post.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    david_herdson said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?
    Nutless.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    david_herdson said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?
    Nutella, European with a feminine inflection.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    I agree. oppose.

    Of course, will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

    More important from a Democrat perspective is that it would be against their own long-term interests. Being seen to cooperate with the appointment of a straight-down-the-line conservative replacement for a conservative Justice will win them important goodwill for the real fight - which is what happens when a liberal Justice pops his/her clogs.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    Simpler: the UK believes in fair play.

    Fair play, moderation, do what works, don't make a fuss, puncture anyone who gets too pompous, don't take anything too seriously, mind your business, do-to-others-as-you-would-be-done-by, keep calm and carry on..

    If we are to teach truly "British" values to anyone, those are really what ours are.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Casino_Royale said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT:

    Do people believe this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/82942/rebel-tory-mps-could-defy

    22 Tory MPs to support an amendment giving them the chance to trap us in the EU at the end of the negotiations?

    Let's think. Soubry and Grieve definitely, plus Clarke and Carmichael probably. Maybe Vaizey and Neill too.

    I don't see where the other 16 come from.

    I did a list last week of them but can't be arsed searching for the post.
    I'm sure it's still somewhere in your grey matter :wink:
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    James O'Keefe
    It's a sad state of humanity when NYT attacks a man of justice for believing "human life is inherently valuable" https://t.co/rU8Cjeic67

    The older I get, the more sympathetic I've become re the pro life view. I just don't like how far / loose things have become on this subject.

    As Reagan said, "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
    "the politer option"
    The nomination was before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination, without even the pretense of consideration.
    Interesting use of polite.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Observer, indeed. There's a reason the Greeks opposed Xerxes at Thermopylae rather than a day down the road.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The UK is a pragmatic, European country; largely populated by decent, pragmatic people. These results are not a surprise. It is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion and place of birth; it would be difficult to withdraw a state visit invite once it has been issued - especially to someone as unpredictable and thin-skinned as President Trump.

    When deciding whether visas are needed for entry at all, and on granting visas, the UK discriminates heavily against people from Muslim countries. Is that wrong?
    It has to meet our 'fair play' or 'common sense' test, see my post below.

    If it does, then sure.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    NewsTaker said:

    Splits? Which parties will be the most split and the most united in tonight's HoC 2nd vote on the bill itself?
    Cons 1 in 329 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    Lab 40 in 231 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    LD 2 in 9 not voting for the 3 line whip?
    SNP 0 in 54 not voting for the 3 line whip?.

    If that is what happens then most split = Lib Dems followed by Lab.
    Most united = SNP followed by Cons.

    Tonight is a vote on second reading (i.e. the Bill's principles) so I expect no more than 110 votes against, with probably over 450 in favour.

    Where it will get interesting on amendments is in committee/report stage - it's possible the Government may accept a couple (which it re-words) if one or two are starting to look dicey.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited February 2017
    I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.

  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:



    I agree. Indeed, if the Democrats are foolish enough to take this to the brink, the casualty could be the 60-vote rule as reasonable public opinion which isn't partisanly bound to one side or the other, would come out against the unreasonableness of the Democrats. And if filibustering is made easier to overturn, that would make the GOP's legislative program (not to mention future SCOTUS nominees) a lot harder to oppose.

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).

    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
    "the politer option"
    The nomination was before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination, without even the pretense of consideration.
    Interesting use of polite.
    Like I say, I do think it was politically inadvisable but it does mean that Garland doesn't have a rejection on his CV.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    Nigelb said:

    david_herdson said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    On the Trump SCOTUS nomination - a judge with a strong record who believes in states rights and interprets the constitution literally. Democrats would be foolish to filibuster on him. This is a conservative replacing a conservative. It's the appointment after this one that ammunition should be conserved for. The likelihood is that that the next Justice down will be a liberal. Trump will ignore convention and nominate a conservative to replace. That's when the fight should take place.

    snip

    Of course, there is the risk to the GOP that the same rule change would work against them once they're in opposition but they have at least four years before that happens. Even if they lose Congress, they still have a presidential veto on their side (and I doubt that Trump will be shy in using it).
    "the unreasonableness of the Democrats...."
    Well, that's a view.
    Taken in the context of the absolute, and unprecedented refusal of the Republicans even to consider the nomination of Garland, it's a curious argument.
    If you're saying that democratic conventions apply only to one side, then it's difficult to see how those conventions - and the 60 vote rule is merely a convention - survive.
    Not even considering the nomination was foolish but the Republicans would have been within their rights to reject the nomination given that they had the numbers to do so and arguably doing what they did was the politer option.

    What I think would be seen as unreasonable (and, FWIW, I think it'd be unreasonable) is for the Democrats to block a good nomination made by a Republican president to a Republican-controlled congress, simply because they can, because they want payback and because they're in a foul mood. Sometimes you have to know when to fold a losing hand.

    Nowhere did I say that democratic conventions only apply to one side but yes, I suspect that the 60 vote rule will be a casualty of the excessive partisanship of the next few years. That too would be a counter-productive effect of filibustering the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
    "the politer option"
    The nomination was before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination, without even the pretense of consideration.
    Interesting use of polite.
    I didn't pay any attention to SCOTUS market talk here - was the winner tipped much?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    david_herdson said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?
    Are fans of Paul Nutall The Nutting Squad?
  • Options
    llefllef Posts: 298
    (to my mind, fairly bullish) NIESR forecasts of growth of 1.7% and 1.8% in 2107, 18 and says

    On Britain's large current account deficit, NIESR said it expected the shortfall to narrow to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2017 from 4.7 percent in 2016 and to turn into a surplus in 2019, helped by the fall in the value of sterling.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-boe-niesr-idUKKBN15G2Y4
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Royale,

    "Fair play, moderation, do what works, don't make a fuss, puncture anyone who gets too pompous, don't take anything too seriously, mind your business, do-to-others-as-you-would-be-done-by, keep calm and carry on."

    Spot on.

    So how do Luvvies rate?
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,601
    Shame that YouGov didn't ask whether May was right to offer a visit in the first place,
    nor whether she was right to offer the honour of a state visit specifically thus involving the Queen, nor whether having offered the state visit it should now be downgraded to a non state visit (which is what the petition is essentially asking).

    A question along the lines of the following would have generated very different results:
    "Theresa May has invited Donald Trump to make a full state visit to the UK in the near future. This will include a reception with HM Queen Elizabeth II and full royal pagentry, an exceptional act and an invitation not offered to Barack Obama until three years into his presidency. Was she right to accord Donald Trump this honour at the start of his presidency?"
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    The_Apocalypse said:

    I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a culture of life. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.

    IME of this subject in the USA, there's a strong correlation between valuing life/law and order/family values = protecting your loved ones/living in a safe place.

    Punishing those who threaten your family is perfectly logical. That includes the 'innocent' unborn.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    The_Apocalypse said:

    I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.

    They also seem to have a sliding scale of value when it comes to those murdered by other 'pro lifers'.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Corbyn has 6 penalties at an open goal.

    Skyed 4 so far...
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    May doing well so far, but at least Corbyn is asking something relevant for once.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Shame that YouGov didn't ask whether May was right to offer a visit in the first place,
    nor whether she was right to offer the honour of a state visit specifically thus involving the Queen, nor whether having offered the state visit it should now be downgraded to a non state visit (which is what the petition is essentially asking).

    A question along the lines of the following would have generated very different results:
    "Theresa May has invited Donald Trump to make a full state visit to the UK in the near future. This will include a reception with HM Queen Elizabeth II and full royal pagentry, an exceptional act and an invitation not offered to Barack Obama until three years into his presidency. Was she right to accord Donald Trump this honour at the start of his presidency?"

    hahahaha - Not enough to have fake news you want fake polls as well now!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Phil, that's a leading question and a half.

    You could tilt it the other way.

    "Barack Obama and George W Bush were both offered state visits by the Prime Minister of the day. Was Theresa May right to continue this diplomatic tradition?"

    One of the most interesting parts of psychology was designing a questionnaire, which is trickier than it sounds. As well as reverse questions (asking the exact same sentiment but from the other perspective), trying to ask questions that measured just one thing without adding conditions, leading sentiment or having multiple ideas present could be surprisingly difficult.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,303
    Theresa just shot Corbyn's fox
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Shame that YouGov didn't ask whether May was right to offer a visit in the first place,
    nor whether she was right to offer the honour of a state visit specifically thus involving the Queen, nor whether having offered the state visit it should now be downgraded to a non state visit (which is what the petition is essentially asking).

    A question along the lines of the following would have generated very different results:
    "Theresa May has invited Donald Trump to make a full state visit to the UK in the near future. This will include a reception with HM Queen Elizabeth II and full royal pagentry, an exceptional act and an invitation not offered to Barack Obama until three years into his presidency. Was she right to accord Donald Trump this honour at the start of his presidency?"

    It would. No reputable polling firm would ask it though.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    May doesn't answer the question. Clever. Corbyn needs to press on NHS and USA companies, not move on.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    5 sails wide, 6 hits the bar...
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @krishgm: May has dodged both of Corbyn's key qs (Travel ban and NHS) by using carefully worded answers to qs she wasn't asked. She's v good at it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,010
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    Shame that YouGov didn't ask whether May was right to offer a visit in the first place,
    nor whether she was right to offer the honour of a state visit specifically thus involving the Queen, nor whether having offered the state visit it should now be downgraded to a non state visit (which is what the petition is essentially asking).

    A question along the lines of the following would have generated very different results:
    "Theresa May has invited Donald Trump to make a full state visit to the UK in the near future. This will include a reception with HM Queen Elizabeth II and full royal pagentry, an exceptional act and an invitation not offered to Barack Obama until three years into his presidency. Was she right to accord Donald Trump this honour at the start of his presidency?"

    Whether a State Visit takes place in 2017 or 2019 really makes no difference to those protesting it the public supports a State Visit for Trump that is the key point
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Theresa just shot Corbyn's fox

    No, I think she didn't answer. Nobody is wanting to 'buy' the NHS. US health companies want to come here and provide some of its services - not the same thing.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    May absolutely hammered him with that final statement.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    May batters Corbyn totally.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,303
    He can lead a protest I am leading a Country - Theresa 6 Corbyn 0
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    BOOOOOOOM Corbyn out for the count. that was painful.
  • Options
    PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    Stop! Stop!! He's already dead!
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Phil, that's a leading question and a half.

    You could tilt it the other way.

    "Barack Obama and George W Bush were both offered state visits by the Prime Minister of the day. Was Theresa May right to continue this diplomatic tradition?"

    One of the most interesting parts of psychology was designing a questionnaire, which is trickier than it sounds. As well as reverse questions (asking the exact same sentiment but from the other perspective), trying to ask questions that measured just one thing without adding conditions, leading sentiment or having multiple ideas present could be surprisingly difficult.

    And that's the whole methodology of psychometric testing - asking the same question in several different ways to expose what you really think. I spent a lot of time doing these/examining results - I found it difficult to be misleading more than 20% of the time wth OPQ - despite knowing the traps/having an excellent memory.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    May needs to be careful with this 'I'm leading a country' type of thing. Beginning to sound a bit over the top.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Theuniondivvie said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.

    They also seem to have a sliding scale of value when it comes to those murdered by other 'pro lifers'.
    Well exactly. I don't see pro lifers valuing their lives. A lot of them are also pro death penalty as well.

    @PlatoSaid So prolifers don't believe that all lives are inherently valuable? In this country plenty of people get on just fine without a gun, for example. Many leave it to the courts to decide the appropriate punishment for those who attempt to harm their families.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/826765055303806976

    Though I'm pretty sure Phil has never had an oversized pearl necklace.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,303
    rottenborough said:

    May needs to be careful with this 'I'm leading a country' type of thing. Beginning to sound a bit over the top.

    But she is and she showed Corbyn as totally deluded if he thinks he can
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    rottenborough said:

    May doesn't answer the question. Clever.

    ?? Sums up our politics doesn't it.

    I like the fact that Trump gives straight(ish) answers to questions.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @gabyhinsliff: People will score that as convincing win for May over Corbyn, but that's not the same as her being in the clear on Trump issue #pmqs
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    May fluffed that zinger at the SNP. "Shouldn't want to take Scotland out of the EU by leaving the UK..."
  • Options
    FernandoFernando Posts: 145
    Wow. May's last response to Corbin was a cracker: a serious politician versus a powerless and pointless protestor.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Take your pick...

    @iainmartin1: Appalling that Nats trying to piggy back on Ireland/NI talks and legacy of violence. Opportunist, irresponsible, shameful. #PMQs

    @LJ_Skipper: That was a long game question from @AngusRobertson - get the PM on the record. Clever. #PMQs
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JGForsyth: The SNP want to argue that the Ireland/UK relationship post Brexit shows that an Indy Scotland wouldn't have to have a hard border with rUK

    @krishgm: SNP banging away at the logic that if you can have a soft border with Ireland post Brexit, you could have one with Scotland too. #pmqs
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    Golly, that's a big building for a consulate.

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/826762483771772928
  • Options
    PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    I've got a massive crush on Theresa Villiers. Saddest casualty from brexit :(
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Brexit White Paper tomorrow
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,601
    AndyJS said:

    Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans' views on Trump's travel ban:

    49% support
    41% against

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

    A pretty muted response to the dog whistle. That's his best shot remember.

    And it's heartening to find that the UK population - even though it overwhelmingly wants greater controls on immigration - is against enacting similar Trump-like policies in the UK by 49% to 28%.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    Pauly said:

    I've got a massive crush on Theresa Villiers. Saddest casualty from brexit :(

    SeanT level perviness.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Golly, that's a big building for a consulate

    It would make a nice embassy in a historic ally.
  • Options
    PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    edited February 2017
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Pauly said:

    I've got a massive crush on Theresa Villiers. Saddest casualty from brexit :(

    SeanT level perviness.
    I'm not that bad. I'll never get close to writing a book called "Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You". Also I'm pretty platonic in nature generally.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Golly, that's a big building for a consulate.

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/826762483771772928

    The Auld Alliance reforming?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,010
    edited February 2017
    Last thread The Elabe poll is obviously good for Macron but it had him up to 24% last month and has long given him the best rating of any pollster, Le Figaro at the weekend had him third. Obviously the relentless anti Fillon news at the moment has hit his ratings for the time being but still almost 3 months until polling day for him to shore up his position and he is helped by the fact his biggest support comes from pensioners and Macron's from the young. Le Pen is going to come first in round one it seems and it is between Macron and Fillon for the other runoff spot and turnout could be key
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    I have found that Pro lifers are selective in their value of life and when they want to create a 'culture of life'. Pro Lifers care about abortion but hate any form of gun control. Pro lifers say they think all lives are valuable but dismiss any reports or accounts of police brutality in America.

    They also seem to have a sliding scale of value when it comes to those murdered by other 'pro lifers'.
    Well exactly. I don't see pro lifers valuing their lives. A lot of them are also pro death penalty as well.

    @PlatoSaid So prolifers don't believe that all lives are inherently valuable? In this country plenty of people get on just fine without a gun, for example. Many leave it to the courts to decide the appropriate punishment for those who attempt to harm their families.
    It's a very common misconception - I had it myself at the start. How can pro-lifers be for the death penalty?!?!

    Once I understood the principles behind it - it made total sense and I slapped myself for being so dense.

    It's not about *life* per se - but about creating a society with appropriate values that makes it's good for families et al. Those who go OTT and score too many negative points lose their right to participate.

    The unborn haven't done anything wrong. They don't lose their right to participate because it's inconvenient. If we killed people for being inconvenient - I can think of many categories, and it's why euthanasia is such a vexing issue.
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Golly, that's a big building for a consulate.

    https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/826762483771772928

    The Auld Alliance reforming?
    Where is Edward III when we need him?
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,305
    Guardian seems to have PMQs as a score draw:

    Snap PMQs verdict: Strong and effective performances from Corbyn and May. Corbyn started with a superb, short zinger, and for the first four questions of the exchanges, as he quizzed May over Trump, he clearly had the upper hand. He asked a good question on the NHS and a UK-US trade deal too, but May was able to knock this back with a reply that was convincing rhetorically, if not necessarily technically and legally. (What on earth does “the NHS is not for sale” actually mean?) May only really got the better of Corbyn with her final answer, when she powerfully accused Trump of leftish grandstanding and of being not able to accept the realpolitik necessity of maintaining cordial relations with someone like Donald Trump. This is key to how she sees herself, while Corbyn rates ideological integrity much more. So both of them will be pleased with how PMQs turned out.

    But 'she powerfully accused Trump of leftish grandstanding'? Presumably a typo but an innovative approach from May if true.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,115
    Pauly said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Pauly said:

    I've got a massive crush on Theresa Villiers. Saddest casualty from brexit :(

    SeanT level perviness.
    I'm not that bad. I'll never get close to writing a book called "Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You". Also I'm pretty platonic in nature generally.
    Fair enough, I guess political crushes get a pass.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Pauly said:

    I've got a massive crush on Theresa Villiers. Saddest casualty from brexit :(

    Her hair reminds me of Wallace's girlfriend. Villiers is superb IMO - was very impressed during Brexit.
This discussion has been closed.