Howdy, Stranger!

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

Wanted: A PM who DID NOT go to Oxford – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited February 2022 in General
imageWanted: A PM who DID NOT go to Oxford – politicalbetting.com

With Johnson under police investigation we might be only days or possibly or just a few months away from a Tory leadership election and inevitably we are starting to see leadership speculation.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    Not happening - Rishi is an Oxford man....
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Golly. That's like the coin tosses at the beginning of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022
    The last Cambridge educated PM was Baldwin. We have even had a Birmingham educated PM in Neville Chamberlain and an Edinburgh educated PM in Gordon Brown since then (Major, Callaghan and Churchill were non graduates).

    However I have no problem with most of our PMs being from Oxford, it is along with Cambridge the best university and most selective university in the country and one of the best in the world. Oxford also tends to be more PPE and humanities focused, Cambridge is more science focused (Cambridge has more Nobel Prize winners than Oxford). That is the main reason most of our PMs come from Oxford not Cambridge. Although Howard went to Cambridge and could have become PM had he won the 2005 general election and Portillo went to Cambridge too. Burnham went to Cambridge as well so if OGH really wants a non Oxford PM perhaps he could back Burnham not Starmer (Starmer admittedly went to Leeds for undergrad but still did postgrad at Oxford). Tugendhat the only Cambridge educated Tory contendor as mentioned.

    Of other Tory leadership contenders to succeed the Oxford educated Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Truss and Raab also went to Oxford (Sunak went to Stanford as well) but Patel went to Essex University and as stated in the header Mourdaunt to Reading.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited February 2022
    Scott_xP said:
    Englishmen playing The Roarin Game? Whaur's yer tartan breeks laddies?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
  • Did I just hear Ashworth say that people were on a waiting list to have a catamaran removed?

    :smiley:
  • Did I just hear Ashworth say that people were on a waiting list to have a catamaran removed?

    :smiley:

    On sky news.
  • Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148
    edited February 2022
    Yay.

    My predilection made it to the header.

    Out of interest, did any of these claim their MAs-by-assumption ?
  • Macron is the best.

    "Far superior in every way to his Anglo-Saxon allies, the French President shows Statesmanship, maturity and common sense"

    So says Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey.

    Of Pravda.

    https://english.pravda.ru/opinion/150165-superior_emmanuel_macron/
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    It's one of the most stated truths on pb.

    I understand Peter Hennessy has been complimentary towards Mordaunt. She might be my pick, it's pointless going for a Remainer given the Tory base. They should just get on with it.
  • HYUFD said:

    The last Cambridge educated PM was Baldwin. We have even had a Birmingham educated PM in Neville Chamberlain and an Edinburgh educated PM in Gordon Brown since then (Major, Callaghan and Churchill were non graduates).

    However I have no problem with most of our PMs being from Oxford, it is along with Cambridge the best university and most selective university in the country and one of the best in the world. Oxford also tends to be more PPE and humanities focused, Cambridge is more science focused (Cambridge has more Nobel Prize winners than Oxford). That is the main reason most of our PMs come from Oxford not Cambridge. Although Howard went to Cambridge and could have become PM had he won the 2005 general election and Portillo went to Cambridge too. Burnham went to Cambridge as well so if OGH really wants a non Oxford PM perhaps he could back Burnham not Starmer (Starmer admittedly went to Leeds for undergrad but still did postgrad at Oxford). Tugendhat the only Cambridge educated Tory contendor as mentioned.

    Of Tory leadership contenders to succeed the Oxford educated Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Truss and Raab also went to Oxford (Sunak went to Stanford as well) but Patel went to Essex University and as stated in the header Mourdaunt to Reading.

    .......the grammar school of universities.......

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
  • Not happening - Rishi is an Oxford man....

    The electorate seem to be open to the idea:

    Boris Johnson:

    London -33
    Rest of South -28
    Midlands -43
    North -43
    Wales -43
    Scotland -77
    GB -40

    Keir Starmer:

    London +3
    Rest of South -5
    Midlands +11
    North +8
    Wales +18
    Scotland +7
    GB +4

    Rishi Sunak:

    London +16
    Rest of South +45
    Midlands +44
    North +26
    Wales +51
    Scotland +27
    GB +35

    (Deltapoll/Daily Mirror; Sample Size: 1,515; Fieldwork: 25th - 27th January 2022)
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Mind you it is per General Election - the ratio is ony (!) 10:1 individuals.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    Slightly contrived list not to feature Brown and Callaghan I think.
  • HYUFD said:

    The last Cambridge PM was Baldwin. We have even had a Birmingham PM in Neville Chamberlain and an Edinburgh PM in Gordon Brown since then (Major, Callaghan and Churchill were non graduates).

    However I have no problem with most of our PMs being from Oxford, it is along with Cambridge the best university and most selective university in the country and one of the best in the world. Oxford also tends to be more PPE and humanities focused, Cambridge is more science focused (Cambridge has more Nobel Prize winners than Oxford). That is the main reason most of our PMs come from Oxford not Cambridge. Although Howard went to Cambridge and could have become PM had he won the 2005 general election and Portillo went to Cambridge too. Burnham went to Cambridge as well so if OGH really wants a non Oxford PM perhaps he could back Burnham not Starmer (Starmer admittedly went to Leeds for undergrad but still did postgrad at Oxford).

    Of Tory leadership contenders to succeed the Oxford educated Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Truss and Raab also went to Oxford (Sunak went to Stanford as well) but Patel went to Essex University

    Ahem.

    ‘St Andrews beats Oxford and Cambridge universities to top spot’

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-58596714

    As a noted PB royal arsecrawler, surely you must agree that if it’s good enough for the next heir apparent and his Stepford wife it’s good enough for a pm?
  • HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    The LSE is quite remarkable. There are PM's and Presidents from all over the world. But none in the UK. Only Attlee and Ramsay Mac as lecturers.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_associated_with_the_London_School_of_Economics
  • Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland.

    I would also point out Blair was born in Scotland, just educated at Oxford and Home was also from a Scottish landed family educated at Oxford. Bonar Law was PM in the last 100 years too and grew up in Glasgow but was a non graduate.

    So Scots are actually slightly overrepresented in terms of UK PMs, even if Oxford education is overrepresented even amongst Scottish PMs
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    If you choose to vote for a party that can never form the government, it's a bit rich to complain that it never forms the government.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401

    Scott_xP said:
    Englishmen playing The Roarin Game? Whaur's yer tartan breeks laddies?
    Typical Boris.
    He's playing that stone from far too close.
    Course. The rules don't apply to him.
  • dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    The LSE is quite remarkable. There are PM's and Presidents from all over the world. But none in the UK. Only Attlee and Ramsay Mac as lecturers.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_associated_with_the_London_School_of_Economics
    Though the prime minister of rock & roll, Jagger, is an alumnus. Of course he dropped out for a life of penurious mediocrity..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The last Cambridge PM was Baldwin. We have even had a Birmingham PM in Neville Chamberlain and an Edinburgh PM in Gordon Brown since then (Major, Callaghan and Churchill were non graduates).

    However I have no problem with most of our PMs being from Oxford, it is along with Cambridge the best university and most selective university in the country and one of the best in the world. Oxford also tends to be more PPE and humanities focused, Cambridge is more science focused (Cambridge has more Nobel Prize winners than Oxford). That is the main reason most of our PMs come from Oxford not Cambridge. Although Howard went to Cambridge and could have become PM had he won the 2005 general election and Portillo went to Cambridge too. Burnham went to Cambridge as well so if OGH really wants a non Oxford PM perhaps he could back Burnham not Starmer (Starmer admittedly went to Leeds for undergrad but still did postgrad at Oxford).

    Of Tory leadership contenders to succeed the Oxford educated Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Truss and Raab also went to Oxford (Sunak went to Stanford as well) but Patel went to Essex University

    Ahem.

    ‘St Andrews beats Oxford and Cambridge universities to top spot’

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-58596714

    As a noted PB royal arsecrawler, surely you must agree that if it’s good enough for the next heir apparent and his Stepford wife it’s good enough for a pm?
    That includes student satisfaction, it is not based on academics solely or entry grades.

    In the global league table only Oxbridge and Imperial and UCL of UK universities are top ten.

    1 MIT
    2 Oxford
    3 Stanford
    4 Cambridge
    5 Harvard
    6 Caltech
    7 Imperial
    8 = Zurich and UCL
    10 Chicago
    https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,213

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Generally I'd agree of course, but would you hold to this view if he got a speeding fixed penalty?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    dixiedean said:

    Course. The LSE has provided undoubtedly the greatest British PM of all time.
    The Rt. Hon. Jim Hacker.

    Greatest PM we never had, surely?

    Just as Jed Bartlet was the greatest President........
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Fake news. JFK enrolled in 1935, but did not attend due to illness. His fees were repaid.
    Monica Lewinsky did though.
    Neither were Beaver students...
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Generally I'd agree of course, but would you hold to this view if he got a speeding fixed penalty?
    He didn't introduce speeding laws.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786

    Did I just hear Ashworth say that people were on a waiting list to have a catamaran removed?

    :smiley:

    Oh to be 30 - 40 years younger and sail a Hobie/Dart/Tornado again. Sadly far to old now. As a bucket list item I would love to be taken out on an AC72 or similar, but sadly it doesn't look like it is possible.
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Fake news. JFK enrolled in 1935, but did not attend due to illness. His fees were repaid.
    Monica Lewinsky did though.
    Neither were Beaver students...
    Bill Clinton certainly saw Monica Lewinsky as a beaver student.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland.

    I would also point out Blair was born in Scotland, just educated at Oxford and Home was also from a Scottish landed family educated at Oxford. Bonar Law was PM in the last 100 years too and grew up in Glasgow but was a non graduate.

    So Scots are actually slightly overrepresented in terms of UK PMs, even if Oxford education is overrepresented even amongst Scottish PMs
    Cambridge has the likely next King, and St Andrews the one after that.

    And HMQ has (honorary) degrees from the Uni of London and Uni of Wales.
  • I’d have broken that list if I had become an MP.

    I fear my legendary modesty would have held me back in politics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918

    HYUFD said:

    The last Cambridge educated PM was Baldwin. We have even had a Birmingham educated PM in Neville Chamberlain and an Edinburgh educated PM in Gordon Brown since then (Major, Callaghan and Churchill were non graduates).

    However I have no problem with most of our PMs being from Oxford, it is along with Cambridge the best university and most selective university in the country and one of the best in the world. Oxford also tends to be more PPE and humanities focused, Cambridge is more science focused (Cambridge has more Nobel Prize winners than Oxford). That is the main reason most of our PMs come from Oxford not Cambridge. Although Howard went to Cambridge and could have become PM had he won the 2005 general election and Portillo went to Cambridge too. Burnham went to Cambridge as well so if OGH really wants a non Oxford PM perhaps he could back Burnham not Starmer (Starmer admittedly went to Leeds for undergrad but still did postgrad at Oxford). Tugendhat the only Cambridge educated Tory contendor as mentioned.

    Of Tory leadership contenders to succeed the Oxford educated Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Truss and Raab also went to Oxford (Sunak went to Stanford as well) but Patel went to Essex University and as stated in the header Mourdaunt to Reading.

    .......the grammar school of universities.......

    Some truth in that.

    41% of Oxford students went to private school but only 35% of Cambridge students went to private school.

    Even St Andrews and Durham and Imperial have more ex private school pupils than Cambridge
    https://thetab.com/uk/2019/09/19/uk-private-school-universities-125931
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,213
    Applicant said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Generally I'd agree of course, but would you hold to this view if he got a speeding fixed penalty?
    He didn't introduce speeding laws.
    Good point
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826

    Personally I wouldn't care if they went to St Trinians if only they were any bloody good at running the country.

    What struck me about that list was how far back you have to go to find one who was remotely as bad as Johnson. I'd actually have to go to Baldwin, who I have always despised. (Brown isn't listed I see, but he was merely poor and he did do good work during the Banking Crisis.)

    I know this point of view is not popular with Hyufd, but it is Monday morning and I feel like annoying somebody.

    Why such hostility to Baldwin? He has quite a few admirers.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    edited February 2022

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    The LSE is quite remarkable. There are PM's and Presidents from all over the world. But none in the UK. Only Attlee and Ramsay Mac as lecturers.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_associated_with_the_London_School_of_Economics
    Though the prime minister of rock & roll, Jagger, is an alumnus. Of course he dropped out for a life of penurious mediocrity..
    As indeed is Carlos the Jackal.
    And Lady Penelope and Parker, too.
    And Jack Ryan, Angelina Jolie and James Bond's Dad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland.

    I would also point out Blair was born in Scotland, just educated at Oxford and Home was also from a Scottish landed family educated at Oxford. Bonar Law was PM in the last 100 years too and grew up in Glasgow but was a non graduate.

    So Scots are actually slightly overrepresented in terms of UK PMs, even if Oxford education is overrepresented even amongst Scottish PMs
    Cambridge has the likely next King, and St Andrews the one after that.

    And HMQ has (honorary) degrees from the Uni of London and Uni of Wales.
    HMQ is a non graduate, though yes we seem to be more willing to have non Oxford educated monarchs than PMs.

    Albeit we do still expect our monarchs to go to private school or have private tutors
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Fake news. JFK enrolled in 1935, but did not attend due to illness. His fees were repaid.
    Monica Lewinsky did though.
    Neither were Beaver students...
    Bill Clinton certainly saw Monica Lewinsky as a beaver student.
    Always a sucker for a Monica gag. (two puns for price of one there)
  • Interesting thread on training new generation of plumbers for all the 'Net Zero' work:

    https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1490634706102202370
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Also funny when you consider the Tory Cambridge mafia of the 60s. Clarke, Howard, Lamont, Gummer, Britten and Fowler.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523

    Personally I wouldn't care if they went to St Trinians if only they were any bloody good at running the country.

    What struck me about that list was how far back you have to go to find one who was remotely as bad as Johnson. I'd actually have to go to Baldwin, who I have always despised. (Brown isn't listed I see, but he was merely poor and he did do good work during the Banking Crisis.)

    I know this point of view is not popular with Hyufd, but it is Monday morning and I feel like annoying somebody.

    Harold Wilson's book "A Prime Minister on Prime Minister" is interestingly nuanced about Baldwin, who he says handled the Abdication crisis well and who supported Churchill when he was most vulnerable. But he condemns Baldwin for a crucial minute, released 35 years later, when he says that Germany will attack Russia and would find attacking the West "too difficult"; Baldwin is explicitly relaxed about the Nazis attacking the Soviets (very much as the Soviets suspected the West thought), and Wilson says the consequent failure to gear up Britain's own rearmament programme was a nearly fatal mistake. It's a good example of making a mistaken judgement and then basing crucial policy decisions on it, rather than allowing for the possibility that your judgement may be wrong.

    Wilson's book is good, and very fair about his predecessors (up to the ones he competed against, about whom he doesn't feel he can sensibly comment), and I'm surprised it's not better-known. I'd never heard of it until I saw it mentioned on PB.
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Fake news. JFK enrolled in 1935, but did not attend due to illness. His fees were repaid.
    Monica Lewinsky did though.
    Neither were Beaver students...
    Bill Clinton certainly saw Monica Lewinsky as a beaver student.
    Always a sucker for a Monica gag. (two puns for price of one there)
    So George Bush Jnr dies and is met at the gates of hell by the Devil, who likes to greet his more famous guests personally. Indeed he is happy to offer special terms and offers George three choices. First he shows him a room of hot coals which he can tiptoe across for eternity but George demurs. Then he shows him the waterboarding room, but again George says no. So then the Devil shows him into a room where the recently deceased Bill Clinton is strapped to a wall, his pants around his ankles. Before him kneels Monika Lewinski, doing what Monika does best.

    "You know I think I could cope with that" says George.

    The Devil is surprised and asks if he is sure and only when George confirms does he tell Monika she can leave now.



    Gotta go - Speed Awareness Course. Wish me luck.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    Personally I wouldn't care if they went to St Trinians if only they were any bloody good at running the country.

    What struck me about that list was how far back you have to go to find one who was remotely as bad as Johnson. I'd actually have to go to Baldwin, who I have always despised. (Brown isn't listed I see, but he was merely poor and he did do good work during the Banking Crisis.)

    I know this point of view is not popular with Hyufd, but it is Monday morning and I feel like annoying somebody.

    Harold Wilson's book "A Prime Minister on Prime Minister" is interestingly nuanced about Baldwin, who he says handled the Abdication crisis well and who supported Churchill when he was most vulnerable. But he condemns Baldwin for a crucial minute, released 35 years later, when he says that Germany will attack Russia and would find attacking the West "too difficult"; Baldwin is explicitly relaxed about the Nazis attacking the Soviets (very much as the Soviets suspected the West thought), and Wilson says the consequent failure to gear up Britain's own rearmament programme was a nearly fatal mistake. It's a good example of making a mistaken judgement and then basing crucial policy decisions on it, rather than allowing for the possibility that your judgement may be wrong.

    Wilson's book is good, and very fair about his predecessors (up to the ones he competed against, about whom he doesn't feel he can sensibly comment), and I'm surprised it's not better-known. I'd never heard of it until I saw it mentioned on PB.
    Baldwin's mistake there was to believe that the fortifications along the German border with France and Belgium meant that WWI Part Deux, in the West would be a stalemate there.

    Despite much written about the Maginot line etc, if the fortifications had been used as part of a defence by flexible and mobile armies in an around them, the German attacks could have been held off. French strategy *and* tactics were lousy at the start of WWII.
  • Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Generally I'd agree of course, but would you hold to this view if he got a speeding fixed penalty?
    I don't view lockdown as the same as speeding restrictions, but if he'd created the speeding laws and was the one behind the introduction of speed cameras etc then yes, quite probably.

    The issue with lockdown isn't just that its the law, but its his law that he imposed upon us. To break your own laws is even more serious than to break pre-existing laws that you didn't necessarily support but hadn't repealed.

    Its worth remembering that in Yes Minister it is a driving incident (albeit drink driving) that starts the chain of events that leads to Hacker becoming Prime Minister.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148
    Covid news.

    I received the paperwork today reminding me that I can have a 4th (booster) jab 3 months after my third (primary) dose.

    Need to find out when I had the third one.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,908

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Don't despair! I don't see the world's billionaires buying up Hartlepool

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotland-environment-green-lairds/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,590
    edited February 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Jim Hacker was LSE.

    edited to add: beaten to it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Jim Hacker was LSE.

    edited to add: beaten to it.
    Yes although Sir Humphrey went to Oxford of course
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    edited February 2022

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Generally I'd agree of course, but would you hold to this view if he got a speeding fixed penalty?
    I don't view lockdown as the same as speeding restrictions, but if he'd created the speeding laws and was the one behind the introduction of speed cameras etc then yes, quite probably.

    The issue with lockdown isn't just that its the law, but its his law that he imposed upon us. To break your own laws is even more serious than to break pre-existing laws that you didn't necessarily support but hadn't repealed.

    Its worth remembering that in Yes Minister it is a driving incident (albeit drink driving) that starts the chain of events that leads to Hacker becoming Prime Minister.
    As others have noted. This is multiple offences over months. And facilitating many, many others to do the same.
    That makes it far more egregious to my mind.
    More comparable to writing "except for me and my mates" below each speed limit sign.
  • Let's have a look at Blair's first cabinet for those born in Scotland:

    Blair
    Brown
    Strang
    Cook
    Robertson
    Lord Irvine of Lairg
    Darling (morning Darling!)
    Clark

    And of course there was Alastair Campbell, son of Scottish veterinary surgeon.

    That is a fairly high proportion.

    Did any non-Scots complain about this? Not that I recall. As I said previously they were probably all race traitors in the mind of some of the ScotNat posters on here. Oh, yes, and to correct Mr Fake News himself, @StuartDickson , both the top two became PM.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.8 million people and has not yet had a single UK PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London and educated at Harrow
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148

    Stocky said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.

    You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value.
    We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.

    So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
    And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.

    If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.

    And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
    I agree with all this as far as it goes.

    But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
    What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson?
    I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.

    He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.

    I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.

    I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
    Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.

    He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
    The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
    Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.

    The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.

    Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.

    And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
    Lawbreakers *can* be lawmakers.

    The threshold for automatic ineligibility to be an MP is a jail sentence passed of 12 months or more.

    Given that our system believes in rehabilitation (albeit sometimes theoretically, and lynching by media still operates), that is surely as it should be.

    Though one could argue that PMs are different.
  • Personally I wouldn't care if they went to St Trinians if only they were any bloody good at running the country.

    What struck me about that list was how far back you have to go to find one who was remotely as bad as Johnson. I'd actually have to go to Baldwin, who I have always despised. (Brown isn't listed I see, but he was merely poor and he did do good work during the Banking Crisis.)

    I know this point of view is not popular with Hyufd, but it is Monday morning and I feel like annoying somebody.

    Harold Wilson's book "A Prime Minister on Prime Minister" is interestingly nuanced about Baldwin, who he says handled the Abdication crisis well and who supported Churchill when he was most vulnerable. But he condemns Baldwin for a crucial minute, released 35 years later, when he says that Germany will attack Russia and would find attacking the West "too difficult"; Baldwin is explicitly relaxed about the Nazis attacking the Soviets (very much as the Soviets suspected the West thought), and Wilson says the consequent failure to gear up Britain's own rearmament programme was a nearly fatal mistake. It's a good example of making a mistaken judgement and then basing crucial policy decisions on it, rather than allowing for the possibility that your judgement may be wrong.

    Wilson's book is good, and very fair about his predecessors (up to the ones he competed against, about whom he doesn't feel he can sensibly comment), and I'm surprised it's not better-known. I'd never heard of it until I saw it mentioned on PB.
    Thanks Nick, I'll read that. I enjoy the biographies of PMs because they are often revealing in ways the authors did not intend.

    My beef with Baldwin revolves very much around his complacency, and not just in respect of rearmament. Nevertheless I remain outraged by the defence he offered for his policy which was along the lines of...'Well, the [Labour] oppsition was even more pacifist than the Government'. If you can't see the fatal flaw in that argument, well.....

    Wilson was a decent enough PM, imo, but if I had to identify a major weakness it would be a certain complacency in the face of some rather serious developments. Maybe that helps explains why he was relatively kind about Baldwin!

    I don't know much about the abdication crisis so find it hard to comment, but support for Churchill when he was vulnerable would definitely be a plus.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
  • HYUFD said:

    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Jim Hacker was LSE.

    edited to add: beaten to it.
    Yes although Sir Humphrey went to Oxford of course
    Worse, he studied PPE.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    One of the most interesting parts of Rupert Davenport Hines' otherwise rather dry book Enemies Within is how the Soviets struggled to comprehend that Oxford and Cambridge were the most prestigious universities because they assumed such august institutions must be based in London. Of course they eventually worked that one out.....

    So maybe there we have it. Cambridge graduates don't become Prime minister because they are too busy spying for the Russians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Fake news. JFK enrolled in 1935, but did not attend due to illness. His fees were repaid.
    Monica Lewinsky did though.
    Neither were Beaver students...
    Bill Clinton certainly saw Monica Lewinsky as a beaver student.
    Always a sucker for a Monica gag. (two puns for price of one there)
    So George Bush Jnr dies and is met at the gates of hell by the Devil, who likes to greet his more famous guests personally. Indeed he is happy to offer special terms and offers George three choices. First he shows him a room of hot coals which he can tiptoe across for eternity but George demurs. Then he shows him the waterboarding room, but again George says no. So then the Devil shows him into a room where the recently deceased Bill Clinton is strapped to a wall, his pants around his ankles. Before him kneels Monika Lewinski, doing what Monika does best.

    "You know I think I could cope with that" says George.

    The Devil is surprised and asks if he is sure and only when George confirms does he tell Monika she can leave now.



    Gotta go - Speed Awareness Course. Wish me luck.
    Let us know how much they cover the new stuff in the Highway Code. ATB.
  • One of the most interesting parts of Rupert Davenport Hines' otherwise rather dry book Enemies Within is how the Soviets struggled to comprehend that Oxford and Cambridge were the most prestigious universities because they assumed such august institutions must be based in London. Of course they eventually worked that one out.....

    So maybe there we have it. Cambridge graduates don't become Prime minister because they are too busy spying for the Russians.

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

    It is simply that people who go to Oxford are far too dull to become spies or be closet homosexuals
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    Actually you can also now add Anna Firth, the new Southend West MP, as she was born in Leigh on Sea.

  • HYUFD said:

    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    That's a remarkable list. I had no idea Oxford was THAT dominant, I would have expected more from Cambridge and a smattering from London - LSE, UCL, etc


    It is also quite depressing and I agree with the general thrust. Non Oxford would be good

    JFK went to LSE briefly, one Japanese PM went to UCL. Yet we have not yet had a UK PM who went to London University
    Jim Hacker was LSE.

    edited to add: beaten to it.
    Yes although Sir Humphrey went to Oxford of course
    Worse, he studied PPE.
    Fake news. He studied Literae humaniores (the Greats)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Or possibly/more likely Wes Streeting, born in the part of Essex later taken over by London.
  • Taking Back the Control to shaft our previously thriving music sector.

    Green Man festival owner Fiona Stewart says her costs have risen 34.5% since 2016 against a 20% rise in ticket prices. This year, “we’ve started to see real problems with sourcing goods and services,” she says, adding that Brexit has also exacerbated issues for festivals. “A lot of the big touring infrastructure, which Britain was a world leader in, has been completely decimated. Now, because you can only make two stops if you’re a British vehicle in any European country, all those companies are moving to Europe so everything we utilise to do with infrastructure has increased in price.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/feb/07/how-live-music-joined-cost-of-living-crisis
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    Personally I wouldn't care if they went to St Trinians if only they were any bloody good at running the country.

    What struck me about that list was how far back you have to go to find one who was remotely as bad as Johnson. I'd actually have to go to Baldwin, who I have always despised. (Brown isn't listed I see, but he was merely poor and he did do good work during the Banking Crisis.)

    I know this point of view is not popular with Hyufd, but it is Monday morning and I feel like annoying somebody.

    Harold Wilson's book "A Prime Minister on Prime Minister" is interestingly nuanced about Baldwin, who he says handled the Abdication crisis well and who supported Churchill when he was most vulnerable. But he condemns Baldwin for a crucial minute, released 35 years later, when he says that Germany will attack Russia and would find attacking the West "too difficult"; Baldwin is explicitly relaxed about the Nazis attacking the Soviets (very much as the Soviets suspected the West thought), and Wilson says the consequent failure to gear up Britain's own rearmament programme was a nearly fatal mistake. It's a good example of making a mistaken judgement and then basing crucial policy decisions on it, rather than allowing for the possibility that your judgement may be wrong.

    Wilson's book is good, and very fair about his predecessors (up to the ones he competed against, about whom he doesn't feel he can sensibly comment), and I'm surprised it's not better-known. I'd never heard of it until I saw it mentioned on PB.
    Thanks Nick, I'll read that. I enjoy the biographies of PMs because they are often revealing in ways the authors did not intend.

    My beef with Baldwin revolves very much around his complacency, and not just in respect of rearmament. Nevertheless I remain outraged by the defence he offered for his policy which was along the lines of...'Well, the [Labour] oppsition was even more pacifist than the Government'. If you can't see the fatal flaw in that argument, well.....

    Wilson was a decent enough PM, imo, but if I had to identify a major weakness it would be a certain complacency in the face of some rather serious developments. Maybe that helps explains why he was relatively kind about Baldwin!

    I don't know much about the abdication crisis so find it hard to comment, but support for Churchill when he was vulnerable would definitely be a plus.
    Still.....

    On 30 July 1934, Labour moved a motion of censure against the government because of its planned expansion of the RAF. Attlee spoke for it: "We deny the need for increased air arms...and we reject altogether the claim of parity". Sir Stafford Cripps also said on that occasion that it was fallacy that Britain could achieve security through increasing air armaments.

    Various interesting moves which formed the basis of later re-armament were taken by Baldwin.

    Re-armament began *before* the Nazis came to power - it started when the previous German government laid down the pocket battleships.

    Very soon after the Nazis came to power it became a matter of not how much money could be spent on re-armament, but of building the capability to use such money.

    The UK armaments industry had been massively run down - simply waving money around couldn't conjure up steam turbines, armour plate, gun barrels etc etc. So money was spent on re-creating the capabilities. Which only much later began to produce the actual weapons.

    A classic example was the decision to buy Sagans of Fairey Battles. Which was an obviously obsolete type quite soon after it was first procured. The reason for this was to build out the industry and RAF, with a relatively cheap aircraft, with a crew consisting of a pilot, navigator and air gunner. The plan was alway to replace it, once industry was up to the task of manufacturing heavier bombers - see B1.39 Standard Bomber project. The Battles would build up the RAF squadrons, and train the nucleus of the crews for the heavy bombers to come.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    One of my more interesting experiences at University was that the students on our Russian course had a 16 week exchange with students from the USSR (this was mid-1980s).

    They were saturated in English Georgian and Victorian Classics (create an easily managed stereotype of Western societal values), brought much of their food with them (eg tins of meat) to save up hard currency allowances for consumer durables, and were very carefully supervised inside a well controlled section of the hall of residence.

    It caused a bit of havoc when one of them converted to Christianity. It was equally interesting house-sharing with one of the students who went to Leningrad on the Exchange, and understanding some of the restrictions placed on the life of Baptist churches in the USSR.
  • On topic: Seems an excellent rule of the unwritten British constitution.
  • Living in San Francisco is where your Singaporean Chinese wife (who lived in Singapore for 32 years until last June) gets corrected by a kid for calling it "Chinese New Year."

    Apparently, the "correct" term here is "Lunar New Year."

    https://twitter.com/pratyushbuddiga/status/1490451465369841667?t=LwBQklKgLKuosTHLQhoRlg&s=19
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,955
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    Surely the words 'I wouldn't vote for that **** Rosindell if he was the last politician left in Essex' have been uttered?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    One of my more interesting experiences at University was that the students on our Russian course had a 16 week exchange with students from the USSR (this was mid-1980s).

    They were saturated in English Georgian and Victorian Classics (create an easily managed stereotype of Western societal values), brought much of their food with them (eg tins of meat) to save up hard currency allowances for consumer durables, and were very carefully supervised inside a well controlled section of the hall of residence.

    It caused a bit of havoc when one of them converted to Christianity. It was equally interesting house-sharing with one of the students who went to Leningrad on the Exchange, and understanding some of the restrictions placed on the life of Baptist churches in the USSR.
    One set of nieces had (he's long gone) a grandfather who was born in Russia. One of the girls went on a Baltic Sea School Trip, bought by her other grandfather (born in Wales), which included a stop at Leningrad, and my 16 or so off niece was not allowed to land, and see the sights with her friends
  • tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.

    Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
  • Mr. Urquhart, that's as bullshit as the BCE/CE nonsense.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    Interesting thread on training new generation of plumbers for all the 'Net Zero' work:

    https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1490634706102202370

    It ignores a big elephant in the room - unless your house is very modern and meets the very latest insulation rules, Heatpumps are as much use as a chocolate fireguard in warming a property.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited February 2022

    Living in San Francisco is where your Singaporean Chinese wife (who lived in Singapore for 32 years until last June) gets corrected by a kid for calling it "Chinese New Year."

    Apparently, the "correct" term here is "Lunar New Year."

    https://twitter.com/pratyushbuddiga/status/1490451465369841667?t=LwBQklKgLKuosTHLQhoRlg&s=19

    It would be rather more sensible for the people of San Francisco to put the energy they devote to policing ludicrous neologisms into dealing with their awful drug overdoses, crime, urban decay and homelessness instead.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.

    Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
    Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    eek said:

    Interesting thread on training new generation of plumbers for all the 'Net Zero' work:

    https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1490634706102202370

    It ignores a big elephant in the room - unless your house is very modern and meets the very latest insulation rules, Heatpumps are as much use as a chocolate fireguard in warming a property.
    Training plumbers for the hydrogen addition to the natural gas supply is also a big one.

    The last time we had the boiler inspected, the plumber told me about going on his hydrogen certification course. Where they couldn't use actual hydrogen. Because they would need to rebuild the training centre to handle it safely.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.

    Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
    Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
    When the news reader on the six o'clock read it out she did so in a way that made it sound like Carr genuinely believed it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    Surely the words 'I wouldn't vote for that **** Rosindell if he was the last politician left in Essex' have been uttered?
    Rosindell won Romford for the first time in 2001, one of just 9 Tory gains across the whole UK and he got the biggest Tory swing in the country.

    In 2019 he got 64.6% of the vote. He may not be everyone's cup of tea but he is hugely popular in Romford


  • Training plumbers for the hydrogen addition to the natural gas supply is also a big one.

    The last time we had the boiler inspected, the plumber told me about going on his hydrogen certification course. Where they couldn't use actual hydrogen. Because they would need to rebuild the training centre to handle it safely.

    I have read that, counter-intuitively, hydrogen is safer than natural gas. The reason for this is that it is so light that, if it leaks, it dissipates from a building very rapidly, rather than remaining trapped inside and building up a dangerous concentration as natural gas does.
  • tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    Wait until Sajid Javid hears about the bloke who called black people piccaninnies and Muslim women letterboxes.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    My final remark on this. Who are the truly great Prime ministers? I would argue

    Walpole - Cambridge
    Pitt The Younger - Cambridge
    Gladstone - Oxford
    Lloyd-George - n/a
    Churchill - n/a

    So two Cambridge, one Oxford and two who never went to university.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Your modesty with regard to your ambition is very creditable!
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    eek said:

    Interesting thread on training new generation of plumbers for all the 'Net Zero' work:

    https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1490634706102202370

    It ignores a big elephant in the room - unless your house is very modern and meets the very latest insulation rules, Heatpumps are as much use as a chocolate fireguard in warming a property.
    Absolutely, heat pumps in their current format are not the answer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,991
    edited February 2022
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.

    Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
    Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
    Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
  • The 'Woke BLM barbarians are at the gates of Western civilisation' boys have lost the Tory party!

    They came for Joe Rogan, a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Black & White Minstrel Show, Robertson's Marmalade and Jimmy Carr and every time I said loads of stuff on the internet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,991
    edited February 2022

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boycott-jimmy-carr-over-horrid-joke-about-roma-people-says-sajid-javid

    Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”

    So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.

    Wait until Sajid Javid hears about the bloke who called black people piccaninnies and Muslim women letterboxes.
    It worse, its not even his own material, that's the comedian who plagiarises his gags from the Guardian. Which is even bigger sin in comedy land to go copying others jokes.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,051
    I think having a postgrad experience at Oxford (as I did) is very different to being an undergrad there.
  • MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?

    They should run that question past a thousand Scots.

    Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
    So we get one every hundred years. How fair.

    Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
    Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.

    You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
    I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
    Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
    And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
    So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.

    Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
    Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
    So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
    Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
    One of my more interesting experiences at University was that the students on our Russian course had a 16 week exchange with students from the USSR (this was mid-1980s).

    They were saturated in English Georgian and Victorian Classics (create an easily managed stereotype of Western societal values), brought much of their food with them (eg tins of meat) to save up hard currency allowances for consumer durables, and were very carefully supervised inside a well controlled section of the hall of residence.

    It caused a bit of havoc when one of them converted to Christianity. It was equally interesting house-sharing with one of the students who went to Leningrad on the Exchange, and understanding some of the restrictions placed on the life of Baptist churches in the USSR.
    One set of nieces had (he's long gone) a grandfather who was born in Russia. One of the girls went on a Baltic Sea School Trip, bought by her other grandfather (born in Wales), which included a stop at Leningrad, and my 16 or so off niece was not allowed to land, and see the sights with her friends
    That's a coincidence. I went on a similar trip when I was 16 [1964] and spent a day in Leningrad. Had a great time. No, we were not policed or followed (as far as I know). In fact we were treated royally, once it became clear that we were not Americans, who they didn't like at all.

    I particularly remember the Nevsky Prospect and the ice cream. Some lads made a killing selling bic biro pens for eight times what they cost in England. English cigarettes were also popular but mostly the day passed pleasantly and uneventfully.
This discussion has been closed.