Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
I'm sorry but my comment that Canterbry shoud be second is not a list, nor am I a medievalist (why would you capitalise it).
Drinks are best after 1400, and I suggest you have one.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
Lincoln Norwich Chichester
Wells often gets overlooked but it’s got some stunning bits of design from its chapter house to the inverted vault arches.
Almost “modern” in some aspects yet medieval.
Wells has no business being a city or having a cathedral but I’m glad it is and has.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
If we are debating 'glories of England' (and I think this one is England, but perhaps also Wales), I'd point to the public footpath network of 230km of paths - nearly 2km to each square km of land.
Friends tell that such do not exist to anything like the same extent elsewhere. It is one of the ways we cope with a lot of people in a small space.
Even near somewhere as suburban as NPXMP-land, I can still find several example of old Coffin Walks - where coffins had to be taken to consecrated ground. Some with an extent coffin stone - where the party can stop for a rest.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
Yes well that can help split the non-Consetvative vote further to ensure even more decades of Conservative Government. You want socialist purity, what you get is Conservative Government after Conservative Government. Fill yer boots!
Change UK
SDP
LDs
People love Centrism
2019 proves that British voters prefer right wing extremism when the alternative is left wing extremism.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
It is lacking balls, its being bitches for whatever Labour is this week in the hope of table scraps. There is no beer and sandwiches anymore
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
I've been on the Watercress Line, as well as the electric Island Line on the IoW - but haven't done the Steam Railway.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
I'm sorry but my comment that Canterbry shoud be second is not a list, nor am I a medievalist (why would you capitalise it).
Drinks are best after 1400, and I suggest you have one.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They lack the voting system. With FPTP it will fail.
True but it would be nice for there to be a genuine labour movement rather than the current utter arse
Yes, wouldn't it be lovely to have a "genuine Labour movement" really sticking it to the Tory Government and their permanent 150 seat majority. That would be absolutely ace.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
If we are debating 'glories of England' (and I think this one is England, but perhaps also Wales), I'd point to the public footpath network of 230km of paths - nearly 2km to each square km of land.
Friends tell that such do not exist to anything like the same extent elsewhere. It is one of the ways we cope with a lot of people in a small space.
Even near somewhere as suburban as NPXMP-land, I can still find several example of old Coffin Walks - where coffins had to be taken to consecrated ground. Some with an extent coffin stone - where the party can stop for a rest.
Very true, these simply don't exist in many countries.
I remember wanting to "go for a walk" in Canada and the USA, and there are no options other than public roads, or national parks.
I found that (and still do find it) totally uncivilised, and dystopian.
If we are debating 'glories of England' (and I think this one is England, but perhaps also Wales), I'd point to the public footpath network of 230km of paths - nearly 2km to each square km of land.
Friends tell that such do not exist to anything like the same extent elsewhere. It is one of the ways we cope with a lot of people in a small space.
Even near somewhere as suburban as NPXMP-land, I can still find several example of old Coffin Walks - where coffins had to be taken to consecrated ground. Some with an extent coffin stone - where the party can stop for a rest.
Yes. It's interesting that there are so many fewer footpaths in the Republic of Ireland, despite it so recently being part of the same legal system. There are a few places where an effort has been made to add public rights of way to encourage hiking tourists, such as the Sheep's Head Peninsula, but these are relatively isolated.
Liverpool surely has the two worst, including the papist job described by someone on the Anglican side as looking like a machine gun emplacement manned by daleks.
Have you been in either of them? They are magnificent buildings and the volume of the Anglican is stunning. It is enormous and very awe inspiring
Been inside the Anglican, but not the Catholic. I think the exterior of the Catholic one looks more interesting, personally.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
Lincoln Norwich Chichester
I said I was in lots of minds. Norwich should be close to inclusion, as could Wells be - I once spent half a day there with a tripod and a very long lens, looking at the roof bosses.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
It is lacking balls, its being bitches for whatever Labour is this week in the hope of table scraps. There is no beer and sandwiches anymore
What you Conservatives have in common with BJO and Owen Jones is the desire to ensure permanent Conservative Governments.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
I'm sorry but my comment that Canterbry shoud be second is not a list, nor am I a medievalist (why would you capitalise it).
Drinks are best after 1400, and I suggest you have one.
No offence intended. Apologies if any taken.
I like modern churches.
I like modern churches too. I like all churches and all of that ilk. I simply can't imagine the passion that must have gone into building them. All a bunch of idiots in my view, but human dedicatition and labour is awe inspiring.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
It is lacking balls, its being bitches for whatever Labour is this week in the hope of table scraps. There is no beer and sandwiches anymore
What you Conservatives have in common with BJO and Owen Jones is the desire to ensure permanent Conservative Governments.
No, i want to see the complete and permanent destruction of the Labour party. Bring on the beast that replaces it
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
Yes well that can help split the non-Consetvative vote further to ensure even more decades of Conservative Government. You want socialist purity, what you get is Conservative Government after Conservative Government. Fill yer boots!
Change UK
SDP
LDs
People love Centrism
2019 proves that British voters prefer right wing extremism when the alternative is left wing extremism.
Except that the right gained barely 46% of votes cast, the left and centre-left got 54%.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
It is lacking balls, its being bitches for whatever Labour is this week in the hope of table scraps. There is no beer and sandwiches anymore
What you Conservatives have in common with BJO and Owen Jones is the desire to ensure permanent Conservative Governments.
No, i want to see the complete and permanent destruction of the Labour party. Bring on the beast that replaces it
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
If they take the money from Labour and build it, they will come. I suspect they lack the will or balls to do it though
They won't do it because most trades unionists aren't total morons, and know that the best way to further their interests is to get Starmer elected, not split the vote and allow Truss in on 35% or something.
That isn't lacking balls, it's having a brain.
It is lacking balls, its being bitches for whatever Labour is this week in the hope of table scraps. There is no beer and sandwiches anymore
What you Conservatives have in common with BJO and Owen Jones is the desire to ensure permanent Conservative Governments.
No, i want to see the complete and permanent destruction of the Labour party. Bring on the beast that replaces it
If we are debating 'glories of England' (and I think this one is England, but perhaps also Wales), I'd point to the public footpath network of 230km of paths - nearly 2km to each square km of land.
Friends tell that such do not exist to anything like the same extent elsewhere. It is one of the ways we cope with a lot of people in a small space.
Even near somewhere as suburban as NPXMP-land, I can still find several example of old Coffin Walks - where coffins had to be taken to consecrated ground. Some with an extent coffin stone - where the party can stop for a rest.
Yes. It's interesting that there are so many fewer footpaths in the Republic of Ireland, despite it so recently being part of the same legal system. There are a few places where an effort has been made to add public rights of way to encourage hiking tourists, such as the Sheep's Head Peninsula, but these are relatively isolated.
"I think its time to seriously look at whether trade unions & community orgs can build a new social movement that can fill the vacuum that's been left politically by the mainstream parties. Because [they're not supporting] working class people" - Dave Ward CWU
Yes well that can help split the non-Consetvative vote further to ensure even more decades of Conservative Government. You want socialist purity, what you get is Conservative Government after Conservative Government. Fill yer boots!
Change UK
SDP
LDs
People love Centrism
2019 proves that British voters prefer right wing extremism when the alternative is left wing extremism.
Except that the right gained barely 46% of votes cast, the left and centre-left got 54%.
But the Corbynista extremist Labour Party were 20 plus points shy of your total, which is my point.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
That imo is the list of a Medievalist. Is there anything much after about 1400?
For limiting to 10, I would eject Salisbury for being samey, Worcester, and perhaps Rochester and Gloucester.
I would add in Coventry, which can stand tall against any medieval cathedral in the country, and Southwell for the chapter house amongst other things. My two more might be Liverpool Anglican and Westminster, but I'd be in about 6 minds. Others would be tempting such as St Paul's and Ripon. And I like Parish Church cathedrals.
I think it's a mistake to say "a cathedral should be X". A cathedral is what it is, and has evolved with its community, and is not an isolated piece of architecture.
Lincoln Norwich Chichester
Wells often gets overlooked but it’s got some stunning bits of design from its chapter house to the inverted vault arches.
Almost “modern” in some aspects yet medieval.
Wells has no business being a city or having a cathedral but I’m glad it is and has.
And the lovely green, and the little cul de sac of residences for its canons. Some nice fossils in the museum on the green, too. And the gatehouse for the green, and the Bishop's Palace.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
How many of the new dioceses got a new cathedral, as opposed to a redesignated church?
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
Leeds doesn't make it then.
Nor Bristol I think.
Why not Bristol?
I don't believe it currently has a mass transit system other than buses although a system is planned.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
How many of the new dioceses got a new cathedral, as opposed to a redesignated church?
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
Re-designating churches isn’t totally bonkers - there are many “wool churches” in England that knock European cathedrals into a cocked hat for size and scale.
I remember several years ago, 1990 i believe, at the Commonwealth games the Falklands entered 2 people in the mens 10,000M. They held up the next track events by being ummmm 'not at international standard'
England’s public rights of way and right to roam are both very good.
The coastal path should go around the entire country, though.
I think there are plans to make it so by the 2030s. No idea how realistic this is.
There is a problem which is simple to understand. Define "the coast". If it as a fixed boundary that would be fine. But the bastard keeps moving. I know quite a few places where the sea is literally pounding the shit out of the coast which si moving inland many metres every year...
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
Yes, but there's a qualifying word 'great' (meaning large) in there.
In the UK its a city if the queen says it is.
If we're comparing places in different countries, we need to have common standards. And, frankly, the Queen declaring something doesn't cut it.
So, I'm going with:
- own airport with regularly scheduled services - transit system with more than just buses - at least 4x the population of Bedford
If you don't like my conditions, then tough. They are reasonable and well reasoned.
Leeds doesn't make it then.
Nor Bristol I think.
Why not Bristol?
I don't believe it currently has a mass transit system other than buses although a system is planned.
Robert's criteria are dumb anyway.
I would say it has sufficient local stations with stopping services to double up for one.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
England’s public rights of way and right to roam are both very good.
The coastal path should go around the entire country, though.
I think there are plans to make it so by the 2030s. No idea how realistic this is.
There is a problem which is simple to understand. Define "the coast". If it as a fixed boundary that would be fine. But the bastard keeps moving. I know quite a few places where the sea is literally pounding the shit out of the coast which si moving inland many metres every year...
The Scottish and Welsh coastal paths are already open.
The English Coastal Path is a work in progress. Some parts have been opened; others are in planning. As you say, the coast changes, so the ECP is a 'band' of land onto which the path can move, with a line for the current path (AIUI).
In a way I feel this is a shame. When I walked the coast 20 years ago, part of the fun was having to plan the route; wondering whether paths were actually accessible, or dipping down onto beaches at low tide. An official path *as was already in place in the southwest) becomes a bit of a motorway. When the official path is complete, a little bit of the adventure of walking the coast will disappear.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
Weymouth will be cheaper than Dorchester, but it does have a certain reputation
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
Although the Tories would have been quite happy about him lying to the people. It was lying to the cabinet that did for him.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
How many of the new dioceses got a new cathedral, as opposed to a redesignated church?
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
Re-designating churches isn’t totally bonkers - there are many “wool churches” in England that knock European cathedrals into a cocked hat for size and scale.
It depends how far back you go. My list of new full-size 20C Anglican cathedrals would be something like:
Guildford Liverpool Coventry
Repurposing has some buildings as significant as full-size cathedrals, such as Southwell Minster. And some quite major churches such as Newcastle and Derby.
There are also a number of modern ones in the Roman Catholic Church, but I won't dare to try a list.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
Although the Tories would have been quite happy about him lying to the people. It was lying to the cabinet that did for him.
And that must really wind him up. All the shit he got away with and the thing that did him in was sending ministers out to lie on the telly. Which had happened so often already.
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
I've been on the Watercress Line, as well as the electric Island Line on the IoW - but haven't done the Steam Railway.
Wot? You need to sort that out.
The IoW steam railway is fantastic.
Closest you'll get to a genuine 1920s light railway feel & experience in this century.
Even the rolling stock there dates back to Edwardian times.
OT: Interesting that there is Women's Cricket in the Commonwealth Games, but not Men's Cricket.
Are the Malawi Women competing? By leaps and bounds my favourite team. It's really hard to get any information about their progress.
It is T20 with 8 teams, as cricket is back in for the first time since 1998:
Barbados, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, England.
So no Malawi - sorry.
Look up the Malawi women's scorecards - fantastic! There's also the odd press clipping.
I wonder if Men's cricket would see a resurgence of the WI if they competed under their own banners?
I think there are calls for another re-organisation of international men's cricket, due to too many types and workload and closed patterns of international test matches. AIUI (and I probably don't) The Hundred is not seen to have bedded in well.
But it's the favourite subject for debate. Always.
It would be great if women's cricket showed a better way on this.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
How many of the new dioceses got a new cathedral, as opposed to a redesignated church?
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
Re-designating churches isn’t totally bonkers - there are many “wool churches” in England that knock European cathedrals into a cocked hat for size and scale.
It depends how far back you go. My list of new full-size 20C Anglican cathedrals would be something like:
Guildford Liverpool Coventry
Repurposing has some buildings as significant as full-size cathedrals, such as Southwell Minster. And some quite major churches such as Newcastle and Derby.
There are also a number of modern ones in the Roman Catholic Church, of which Guildford and Liverpool are two.
Coventry was originally a repurposed parish church. We have the Luftwaffe to thank for its modernistic replacement.
The other purpose built Cathedral is Truro, only a small part of the original church remains as an outer aisle.
Some of the others have quite extensive extensions, many less so. Perhaps Portsmouth can claim to be a Cathedral rather than a parish church, as the nave is new, but it isn't especially big.
Likewise most of the RC Cathedrals are "promoted" parish churches, even some that look the part like Arundel. Brentwood and Middlesbrough, both small, were purpose built.
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
I've been on the Watercress Line, as well as the electric Island Line on the IoW - but haven't done the Steam Railway.
Wot? You need to sort that out.
The IoW steam railway is fantastic.
Closest you'll get to a genuine 1920s light railway feel & experience in this century.
Even the rolling stock there dates back to Edwardian times.
Right then. As I’m on a boringly air conditioned train to Richmond, my top ten beautiful cities
1. Venice 2. Paris 3. St Petersburg 4. Florence 5. New Orleans 6. Cambridge 7. Hong Kong 8. New York City 9. Edinburgh 10. Newent 11. Bordeaux
I'd have to put Dubrovnik in the top ten.
The foreign city I most enjoy is Naples.
I would put both Grenada in Spain and Urbino in Italy in my top ten. Both cities where you could almost imagine you are back in medieval times
I certainly wouldn't call either Cambridge or NYC beautiful. Fascinating perhaps but not beautiful.
Cambridge is quite beautiful, from certain angles. But it's still not a city, no matter what @ydoethur or the British government claims.
NYC is impressive, but not beautiful.
I'm intrigued. What's your definition of a city?
I have several requirements, which include (but are not limited to):
* Own airport with regular scheduled services * At least two parliamentary constituencies
So basically - there are hardly any cities in England? Because by your logic, Worcester, Hereford, Exeter, Lichfield, Canterbury, Carlisle, Gloucester, Stoke, Derby, Truro, Chester, Lancaster, Chichester, Salisbury, Bath, Wells, are not cities - and that's without even going into detail.
And I think outside England only Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast would qualify.
I think you've proved my point.
Can you imagine a sentence starting "Beijing, in common with other great cities like Lichfield"?
No. Me neither.
As opposed to the many cities in the US, with populations of a handful of thousand?
Exactly.
Hence my completely objective three criteria that I've listed.
My definition of a city is somewhere large enough that the public transport system is so good there's no point in having a car.
Towns are places that should be big enough to support a decent public transport system, but they don't due to a lack of investment.
Rural areas are those where a decent public transport system is an impossible fantasy.
My definition of a city is somewhere with an ancient cathedral.
I've been itching to downgrade Coventry for some time, so this resonates with me.
So basically, a city is whatever you decide it is, and if you decide it isn't, it isn't?
For the record, I haven't really been itching to downgrade Coventry.
My three tests are perfectly reasonable. Frankly, small towns calling themselves cities because of some royal charter two centuries ago are like putting on ridiculous airs and graces.
Cities are cities because they matter. They need to have a combination of economic and political pull; they need - for want of a better word - gravity.
Oxford, dump as it may be, has gravity. Cambridge has the backs and a couple of nice backs. Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton all have gravity.
Lichfield does not.
Lichfield has the cathedral.
We could do a list of the ten finest cathedrals in England.
In no particular order, I would choose Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, Lichfield, Gloucester, Worcester, York, Worcester, Rochester, Durham.
But has anyone any alternatives? There are many other fine ones.
Canterbury at #2.
To try to take a slightly less one-eyed view than normal, Manchester' cathedral must be one of the worst in the country. It's nice, but a cathedral should be more than nice. There were once plans for an absolutely huge one on the scale of Liverpool's (which I quite like) in Piccadilly Gardens. Instead, we have City Tower and the Ramada Hotel, one of the ugliest buildings in the North.
Chester Cathedral is rather fine. Not sure it's top ten but it can be far off.
Have you ever seen Birmingham Cathedral? Suffers from a similar problem.
Yes. I wonder if big city cathedrals look smaller than they actually are because they're surrounded by big city? Though in Birmingham they've made a splendid job of the site and the grounds. Relates really well to the city around it.
I think it's more because they are cathedrals due to being churches in big cities, rather than cities growing up around them because there were cathedrals.
In the case of Birmingham, a conscious decision was made not to build a big new cathedral as the money was needed for social projects in the city instead.
How many of the new dioceses got a new cathedral, as opposed to a redesignated church?
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
Re-designating churches isn’t totally bonkers - there are many “wool churches” in England that knock European cathedrals into a cocked hat for size and scale.
It depends how far back you go. My list of new full-size 20C Anglican cathedrals would be something like:
Guildford Liverpool Coventry
Repurposing has some buildings as significant as full-size cathedrals, such as Southwell Minster. And some quite major churches such as Newcastle and Derby.
There are also a number of modern ones in the Roman Catholic Church, of which Guildford and Liverpool are two.
Coventry was originally a repurposed parish church. We have the Luftwaffe to thank for its modernistic replacement.
The other purpose built Cathedral is Truro, only a small part of the original church remains as an outer aisle.
Some of the others have quite extensive extensions, many less so. Perhaps Portsmouth can claim to be a Cathedral rather than a parish church, as the nave is new, but it isn't especially big.
Likewise most of the RC Cathedrals are "promoted" parish churches, even some that look the part like Arundel. Brentwood and Middlesbrough, both small, were purpose built.
For substantial rebuilds I think you can definitely add St Edmundsbury with the rebuilt nave and full size tower, and there are other candidates.
Portsmouth is quirky; I like it.
Anyway, I'm about to eat - thanks all for the conversation.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
Weymouth will be cheaper than Dorchester, but it does have a certain reputation
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
I've been on the Watercress Line, as well as the electric Island Line on the IoW - but haven't done the Steam Railway.
Wot? You need to sort that out.
The IoW steam railway is fantastic.
Closest you'll get to a genuine 1920s light railway feel & experience in this century.
Even the rolling stock there dates back to Edwardian times.
Sunil, have you done the toy train to Matheran? A lovely journey. Particularly vicious monkeys in that town though.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
Weymouth will be cheaper than Dorchester, but it does have a certain reputation
Meaning .....?
Mr Google is your friend. Try “Weymouth crap town” or “Weymouth s**thole” to get the ball rolling….
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
I'm not sure you can lead a party by lying to the majority of its membership. If Starmer can triangulate his way to PM fine, but the foundations are shaky.
The membership didn't want Blair's old ideas and the country seems v-unsure.
I'm upset at the lack of love for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
The New Forest, the ancient capital of England in Winchester, the South Downs with ancient iron age forts, beautiful villages that have barely changed in centuries, broad mysterious oak woods, chalk rivers teeming with trout, the naval, aviation and military history and heritage, the fascinating grittiness of Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight - which is paradise Island, the true garden of England.
Upset, I tell you.
My county.
I've been on the Watercress Line, as well as the electric Island Line on the IoW - but haven't done the Steam Railway.
Wot? You need to sort that out.
The IoW steam railway is fantastic.
Closest you'll get to a genuine 1920s light railway feel & experience in this century.
Even the rolling stock there dates back to Edwardian times.
Sunil, have you done the toy train to Matheran? A lovely journey. Particularly vicious monkeys in that town though.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
I'm not sure you can lead a party by lying to the majority of its membership. If Starmer can triangulate his way to PM fine, but the foundations are shaky.
The membership didn't want Blair's old ideas and the country seems v-unsure.
Hang on - so many hard left members have left in disgust. Like BJO. So they aren't around any more to be a problem. And AIUI the bulk of the remaining members are quite happy with the maskirovka employed to take back control from the lunatics.
Tom Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss for Tory leadership
He writes in The Times that her tax cuts are based on 'true conservative principles' & that she can unite party
Significant as Tugendhat is popular with Tory members & a senior figure in the One Nation group
It's really over. She seems to have the support of the members, and has the pleged support of multiple factions within the party. Sunak should really withdraw and we can get Truss over with. I'm excited for the inevitable speculation about an early election. Despite the rhetoric of Truss being continuity Boris, it's a big thing to go directly against the previous Government's policy. But then, when the polls are dire, I'm sure it can be accommodated.
Who knows, temporary honeymoon, she could be tempted. I'm sure Starmer would love to rerun 2017, but with a Labour victory.
Non-partisan note - in my day job, I've been trying to get a commitment from the candidates to honour the commitments in the Government's Animal Welfare Plan - in principle it should be straightforward since it was issued by their Government, but the animal welfare sector is nervous. The promise came through today from Rishi's camp and will feature in (I think) tomorrow's Independent; hoping to get a similar commitment from Liz.
Talking of neighbourhoods, an evening drinking by the river with friends in Richmond-on-Thames - which I have just delightfully done - reminds me that Richmond has the highest concentration of beautiful young women in the UK
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
And there is a chance he is wasn't lying when he ran the leadership. He's actually lying now.
He gets in on a moderate manifesto, but nationalises everything, universal basic income, you name it.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
I think Kent should be way higher, it really is the garden of England and by far the loveliest place you can get to from London in under an hour. I would put Cornwall higher too, but perhaps that's just because I am there right now and it is absolutely glorious! You clearly love the North West, despite the near-constant rain. For me the trouble with this part of England is that it just seems an inferior version of what is available north of the border. Perhaps this is why I prefer the beautiful bits of England down south, which are quite different from the wild, stark beauty of the Scottish Highlands and Islands (for me the most beautiful part of these Isles - and if I was forced to be more specific I would say Skye).
Yes, I do see your point. My view is that Scotland is bigger, but I prefer the North of England. More lived in, more human. You can be at the top of a mountain, but you're never more than an hour's walk from the pub.
But I think formative experiences guide preferences, and my view is entirely subjective.
Pleased to hear Cornwall is glorious! I shall be arriving next Friday.
Talking of neighbourhoods, an evening drinking by the river with friends in Richmond-on-Thames - which I have just delightfully done - reminds me that Richmond has the highest concentration of beautiful young women in the UK
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
Weymouth will be cheaper than Dorchester, but it does have a certain reputation
Meaning .....?
Mr Google is your friend. Try “Weymouth crap town” or “Weymouth s**thole” to get the ball rolling….
I've only been the once, but it seemed OK to me. People cam be very sniffy about seaside towns, and I'm sure it has its issues, but it has its charms too. And a lovely beach with a great view towards the IoW, I think.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
I think Kent should be way higher, it really is the garden of England and by far the loveliest place you can get to from London in under an hour. I would put Cornwall higher too, but perhaps that's just because I am there right now and it is absolutely glorious! You clearly love the North West, despite the near-constant rain. For me the trouble with this part of England is that it just seems an inferior version of what is available north of the border. Perhaps this is why I prefer the beautiful bits of England down south, which are quite different from the wild, stark beauty of the Scottish Highlands and Islands (for me the most beautiful part of these Isles - and if I was forced to be more specific I would say Skye).
Yes, I do see your point. My view is that Scotland is bigger, but I prefer the North of England. More lived in, more human. You can be at the top of a mountain, but you're never more than an hour's walk from the pub.
But I think formative experiences guide preferences, and my view is entirely subjective.
Pleased to hear Cornwall is glorious! I shall be arriving next Friday.
Talking of neighbourhoods, an evening drinking by the river with friends in Richmond-on-Thames - which I have just delightfully done - reminds me that Richmond has the highest concentration of beautiful young women in the UK
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
North end boy and south west girls
South west girls…
Call the police there's a madman around Running down underground To a dive bar in a Richmond town.
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
I'm not sure you can lead a party by lying to the majority of its membership. If Starmer can triangulate his way to PM fine, but the foundations are shaky.
The membership didn't want Blair's old ideas and the country seems v-unsure.
Hang on - so many hard left members have left in disgust. Like BJO. So they aren't around any more to be a problem. And AIUI the bulk of the remaining members are quite happy with the maskirovka employed to take back control from the lunatics.
Look at Corbyn's two leadership elections support from 50%+. If you consider at least half of the labour party loons I would say you're pretty close to the wire.
My reading of the party is that the membership isn't overjoyed by Starmer's tactics and can smell Blair's influence. They can see the strategy, but than so can everyone else. The party is supposed to stand for labour. And the one time the country may actually want to see workers receive a little more, the leadership is too frightened to support them.
If the Labour party won't capture the moment than what is the point of them?
Lovely. And on the final paragraph, the sunset over Morecambe Bay is one of the treasures of England. Best viewed on a bright November evening from the top of Arnside Knott.
Talking of neighbourhoods, an evening drinking by the river with friends in Richmond-on-Thames - which I have just delightfully done - reminds me that Richmond has the highest concentration of beautiful young women in the UK
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
All those millions of (Richmond) women waiting to meet you eh?
Important news: the final episode of Neighbours is on Channel 5 tonight at 9pm.
Margot Robbie. Kylie. Harold Bishop. One of these things is not like the others.
No Mrs Mangel or Bouncer the dog? Fuhgeddaboutit.
The ghost of Madge apparently, so anything is possible.
Vivien Gray died 6 years ago so no Mrs Mangel. Bouncer died in a pegging incident in 1997 Apparently a character names their car Bouncer in the final episode though!
What happens in Helsinki stays in Helsinki.
Bouncer was such a hoe
Surprisingly emotional final episode, led by the Kennedys lots of the old cast returned with the backdrop of Toadie's wedding including Harold Bishop, Kylie and Jason, Guy Pearce and brief appearances by Margot Robbie, Holly Valance, Natalie Imbruglia, Jesse Spencer and the ghosts of Madge Bishop and Doug Willis.
The cynic in me would suggest Channel 5 may have won its timeslot for about the first time ever, not much else was on tonight at 9pm
If @UKLabour members knew before they voted that @Keir_Starmer would do the opposite of what he promised to win their votes then he would not be the Labour leader today.
Starmer committed Political fraud to win the leadership contest, therefore his mandate is not legitimate.
Time for the Unions to bankrupt his shit show of a Party
Absolute nonsense.
It was absolutely clear who the candidate of continuity Corbyn was (RLB) and who the candidate of turning the page was (Starmer).
You can say you don't agree with how he's gone about it, and that's fine. But they idea that it was some kind of fraud is utterly ludicrous.
You do talk bollocks
10 pledges was continuity Corbyn whilst uniting the Party
Done the complete opposite of course
You're living in a fantasy world. If anyone chose Starmer over RLB as they wanted continuity Corbyn, they want their head examined and always did.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
As big a liar as Boris
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
There is a basic problem with this argument. He lied to win the leadership election. But he didn't lie to he British people or to all the voters that Labour need to win back.
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
I'm not sure you can lead a party by lying to the majority of its membership. If Starmer can triangulate his way to PM fine, but the foundations are shaky.
The membership didn't want Blair's old ideas and the country seems v-unsure.
Hang on - so many hard left members have left in disgust. Like BJO. So they aren't around any more to be a problem. And AIUI the bulk of the remaining members are quite happy with the maskirovka employed to take back control from the lunatics.
Look at Corbyn's two leadership elections support from 50%+. If you consider at least half of the labour party loons I would say you're pretty close to the wire.
My reading of the party is that the membership isn't overjoyed by Starmer's tactics and can smell Blair's influence. They can see the strategy, but than so can everyone else. The party is supposed to stand for labour. And the one time the country may actually want to see workers receive a little more, the leadership is too frightened to support them.
If the Labour party won't capture the moment than what is the point of them?
I voted for Corbyn in 2015. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. Then woke up and realised just how desperate it was. So voted for the other guy when Jezbollah was challenged. Then left completely.
You say that the party is supposed to stand for labour. True - but it is supposed to represent labour in government to make significant and lasting changes to the country. If Labour sits in endless opposition then it has failed. You mention Blair like a negative - two landslides and a big majority suggests otherwise...
Talking of neighbourhoods, an evening drinking by the river with friends in Richmond-on-Thames - which I have just delightfully done - reminds me that Richmond has the highest concentration of beautiful young women in the UK
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
But not a patch on the beauties of Macedonia mind.
< Look at Corbyn's two leadership elections support from 50%+. If you consider at least half of the labour party loons I would say you're pretty close to the wire.
My reading of the party is that the membership isn't overjoyed by Starmer's tactics and can smell Blair's influence. They can see the strategy, but than so can everyone else. The party is supposed to stand for labour. And the one time the country may actually want to see workers receive a little more, the leadership is too frightened to support them.
If the Labour party won't capture the moment than what is the point of them?
This shouldn't need spelling out on a Political Betting site but the "point" of the Labour Party is exactly the same as the point of the Conservative Party - to get into Government. I could add some guff about setting out policies to improve the life of and the governance of this country but I won't bother because it's not true.
Both parties exist to be in power - the truth is neither has a clue what to do once in Government but that's not the point. The point is to be in charge, to be important, to be the ones listened to, the ones feted, the ones to whom deference is given.
The trappings of power enforce the pursuit of power but it's no longer a means to an end, it has become an end certainly for the Conservatives and ditto, I suspect, for Labour.
Starmer wants to be Prime Minister, not because he has a radical and positive vision for the country (Truss clearly doesn't and neither does Sunak) but because he wants to have the trappings of office.
If Labour wins next time, it won't make much difference for the vast majority of people and convincing people of that is Starmer's challenge. People will vote Labour if they don't fear Labour - Corbyn terrified people and Johnson benefitted, Blair scared no one and Major, Hague and Howard all paid the price.
Starmer has to present a Labour which is safe, unthreatening and boring - people will vote for that in droves. It may not be what @bigjohnowls wants but that's unimportant - it's what wins elections and office for Labour that matters.
Youngest is going to work at Winfrith in October and needs to find somewhere to live nearby. He looked at Dorchester originally but is now thinking of Weymouth.
Any ideas welcome.
Weymouth will be cheaper than Dorchester, but it does have a certain reputation
Meaning .....?
Weymouth is a bit like a mini-Portsmouth, and chavvy in places.
Tom Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss for Tory leadership
He writes in The Times that her tax cuts are based on 'true conservative principles' & that she can unite party
Significant as Tugendhat is popular with Tory members & a senior figure in the One Nation group
Or 'Tom Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss in a bid to become Foreign Secretary'
It's a move of weakness - he's seen the way the wind is blowing and is trying to ingratiate himself with the new leader and Prime Minister. It's so transparent it's embarrassing.
Tugendhat has debased himself and undermined his future leadership potential by this act of political cowardice.
Because this is the sort of thing I cannot help doing, I have ranked all 39 historical English counties for loveliness. Necessarily highly subjective and almost solely an aesthetic thing - it doesn't take into account how much fun you can have there. Middlesex comes bottom only because being entirely urban it is sui generis - of course lots about London is lovely.
The general pattern is the west and north are lovelier. To me, anyway. I can well appreciate that to some the ideal will be the big open skies of Norfolk or the soft rolling hills of Oxfordshire.
I think Kent should be way higher, it really is the garden of England and by far the loveliest place you can get to from London in under an hour. I would put Cornwall higher too, but perhaps that's just because I am there right now and it is absolutely glorious! You clearly love the North West, despite the near-constant rain. For me the trouble with this part of England is that it just seems an inferior version of what is available north of the border. Perhaps this is why I prefer the beautiful bits of England down south, which are quite different from the wild, stark beauty of the Scottish Highlands and Islands (for me the most beautiful part of these Isles - and if I was forced to be more specific I would say Skye).
Yes, I do see your point. My view is that Scotland is bigger, but I prefer the North of England. More lived in, more human. You can be at the top of a mountain, but you're never more than an hour's walk from the pub.
But I think formative experiences guide preferences, and my view is entirely subjective.
Pleased to hear Cornwall is glorious! I shall be arriving next Friday.
there are no mountains in England, only hills
Really? What's the cutoff? To be honest, whatever the cut off, there is only one summit which feels like a mountain in England: Scafell Pike. I don't wish to denigrate the others: there are some might fine hills and a mighty fine hill is a fine thing to be. But Skiddaw, Helvellyn, Cross Fell, the Cheviot, Kinder Scout, Black Hill, High Willhays... have the bearing of big hills, not small mountains. I do not find them lacking for this.
Comments
Most underestimated: Peterborough.
Almost “modern” in some aspects yet medieval.
Wells has no business being a city or having a cathedral but I’m glad it is and has.
Look, I don't mind that you disagree with him, and you may have a point, but the Trumpian "Stop the steal" stuff... come on.
Friends tell that such do not exist to anything like the same extent elsewhere. It is one of the ways we cope with a lot of people in a small space.
Even near somewhere as suburban as NPXMP-land, I can still find several example of old Coffin Walks - where coffins had to be taken to consecrated ground. Some with an extent coffin stone - where the party can stop for a rest.
I like modern churches.
FFS.
Do you support Nationalisation Yes before No after
Do you stand on Picket Lines in Solidarity with Trade Unions Yes before No after
I will unite all wings of the Party before I will do the total opposite now
Total fraud of a Politician and totally not to be trusted
I remember wanting to "go for a walk" in Canada and the USA, and there are no options other than public roads, or national parks.
I found that (and still do find it) totally uncivilised, and dystopian.
Lawn Bowls Cook Islands 23-12 Falkland Islands
What a fantastic advert for the sport
http://www.keepirelandopen.org/issues.html
Portsmouth and Chelmsford are both perfectly charming and made their neighbourhoods nice, but neither is a textbook example of A Cathedral.
(Chelmsford is pretty tiny for the diocese it covers, but it would be crazy to build something bigger.)
The coastal path should go around the entire country, though.
Robert's criteria are dumb anyway.
Re-designating churches isn’t totally bonkers - there are many “wool churches” in England that knock European cathedrals into a cocked hat for size and scale.
The general idea is good though.
Barbados, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, England.
So no Malawi - sorry.
I wonder if Men's cricket would see a resurgence of the WI if they competed under their own banners?
He lied to you.
And there are millions of voters out there who don't mind that he had to lie to get elected if he could then make Labour electable again. Boris lies to the people. That is bad. Starmer lied to the hard left. That is ok.
The English Coastal Path is a work in progress. Some parts have been opened; others are in planning. As you say, the coast changes, so the ECP is a 'band' of land onto which the path can move, with a line for the current path (AIUI).
See here for a map showing the current progress:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/england-coast-path-overview-of-progress
In a way I feel this is a shame. When I walked the coast 20 years ago, part of the fun was having to plan the route; wondering whether paths were actually accessible, or dipping down onto beaches at low tide. An official path *as was already in place in the southwest) becomes a bit of a motorway. When the official path is complete, a little bit of the adventure of walking the coast will disappear.
Guildford
Liverpool
Coventry
Repurposing has some buildings as significant as full-size cathedrals, such as Southwell Minster. And some quite major churches such as Newcastle and Derby.
There are also a number of modern ones in the Roman Catholic Church, but I won't dare to try a list.
The IoW steam railway is fantastic.
Closest you'll get to a genuine 1920s light railway feel & experience in this century.
Even the rolling stock there dates back to Edwardian times.
But it's the favourite subject for debate. Always.
It would be great if women's cricket showed a better way on this.
The other purpose built Cathedral is Truro, only a small part of the original church remains as an outer aisle.
Some of the others have quite extensive extensions, many less so. Perhaps Portsmouth can claim to be a Cathedral rather than a parish church, as the nave is new, but it isn't especially big.
Likewise most of the RC Cathedrals are "promoted" parish churches, even some that look the part like Arundel. Brentwood and Middlesbrough, both small, were purpose built.
Portsmouth is quirky; I like it.
Anyway, I'm about to eat - thanks all for the conversation.
Tom Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss for Tory leadership
He writes in The Times that her tax cuts are based on 'true conservative principles' & that she can unite party
Significant as Tugendhat is popular with Tory members & a senior figure in the One Nation group
The membership didn't want Blair's old ideas and the country seems v-unsure.
My home cathedral was Hereford, of which I was once the Boy Bishop. Bit of an architectural hodgepodge but not without its charms.
Who knows, temporary honeymoon, she could be tempted. I'm sure Starmer would love to rerun 2017, but with a Labour victory.
I remember making this same observation as a very young man 30+ years ago. It hasn’t changed
He gets in on a moderate manifesto, but nationalises everything, universal basic income, you name it.
@bigjohnowls, rest easy.
South west girls…
Running down underground
To a dive bar in a Richmond town.
My reading of the party is that the membership isn't overjoyed by Starmer's tactics and can smell Blair's influence. They can see the strategy, but than so can everyone else. The party is supposed to stand for labour. And the one time the country may actually want to see workers receive a little more, the leadership is too frightened to support them.
If the Labour party won't capture the moment than what is the point of them?
Guy gave me a hug when he reminded me of the time. Pizza decent though.
And on the final paragraph, the sunset over Morecambe Bay is one of the treasures of England. Best viewed on a bright November evening from the top of Arnside Knott.
The cynic in me would suggest Channel 5 may have won its timeslot for about the first time ever, not much else was on tonight at 9pm
You say that the party is supposed to stand for labour. True - but it is supposed to represent labour in government to make significant and lasting changes to the country. If Labour sits in endless opposition then it has failed. You mention Blair like a negative - two landslides and a big majority suggests otherwise...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/29/video-appears-to-show-russian-soldier-castrating-ukrainian-prisoner
I watched it last night. It’s absolutely grim. I advise against
But it is only going to strengthen Ukrainian resolve against the Russians. Why would you ever surrender if this is your likely fate?
The war can only worsen
Both parties exist to be in power - the truth is neither has a clue what to do once in Government but that's not the point. The point is to be in charge, to be important, to be the ones listened to, the ones feted, the ones to whom deference is given.
The trappings of power enforce the pursuit of power but it's no longer a means to an end, it has become an end certainly for the Conservatives and ditto, I suspect, for Labour.
Starmer wants to be Prime Minister, not because he has a radical and positive vision for the country (Truss clearly doesn't and neither does Sunak) but because he wants to have the trappings of office.
If Labour wins next time, it won't make much difference for the vast majority of people and convincing people of that is Starmer's challenge. People will vote Labour if they don't fear Labour - Corbyn terrified people and Johnson benefitted, Blair scared no one and Major, Hague and Howard all paid the price.
Starmer has to present a Labour which is safe, unthreatening and boring - people will vote for that in droves. It may not be what @bigjohnowls wants but that's unimportant - it's what wins elections and office for Labour that matters.
Tugendhat has debased himself and undermined his future leadership potential by this act of political cowardice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62355010
To be honest, whatever the cut off, there is only one summit which feels like a mountain in England: Scafell Pike. I don't wish to denigrate the others: there are some might fine hills and a mighty fine hill is a fine thing to be. But Skiddaw, Helvellyn, Cross Fell, the Cheviot, Kinder Scout, Black Hill, High Willhays... have the bearing of big hills, not small mountains. I do not find them lacking for this.