I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
I keep saying to everyone.... LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH BUILD COSTS. Build costs in the south east are rising to £2000- £3000 per square metre. A typical 100sqm house costs £250,000 just to build. Before land and developer profit is factored in to the equation.
The reality is that it is now too expensive to build houses. There is this giant supertanker of a development industry, it keeps going, but unless something changes - IE build costs decrease or property prices increase substantially, it will be existentially damaged.
In large parts of the country, interest rate rises are largely going to constrain the ability for property prices to increase. Its a very worrying situation.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Sunak opposes it on the basis it will do nothing for people that actually need help. And he's right.
What is Truss going to do for people who see their energy going up to £2000 a year in October?
It will help people who need help. The people who need help will keep more of their own money, allowing them to pay for their bills from their own labours. How is that a bad thing?
Support Truss has said for those who need help include temporarily axeing the green levy which would reduce bills, relative to what they'll otherwise be, and cutting tax so working people have more disposable income to spend on their bills.
What would your better solution be CHB?
"Keep more of their own money" as a way to describe tax cuts is to frame tax as theft. This is a nonsense (obviously) so it's a phrase I'm not keen on.
Tax is taking away people's money they're working for.
Especially when as Sunak plans you increase taxes on those who work for a living, and use those tax rises to fund a tax cut on those who do not. While triple-lock aiding those who do not too.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
I keep saying to everyone.... LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH BUILD COSTS. Build costs in the south east are rising to £2000- £3000 per square metre. A typical 100sqm house costs £250,000 just to build. Before land and developer profit is factored in to the equation.
The reality is that it is now too expensive to build houses. There is this giant supertanker of a development industry, it keeps going, but unless something changes - IE build costs decrease or property prices increase substantially, it will be existentially damaged.
In large parts of the country, interest rate rises are largely going to constrain the ability for property prices to increase. Its a very worrying situation.
You keep saying it but you've provided no source for those figures.
Considering that homes are built around here for a fraction of that price, I think those numbers are probably bullshit. Most likely by including land, planning etc and profits in the equation already.
I was canvassed by a Lib Dem yesterday who asked if there was anything I'd like to suggest.
I told him I'd suggest reversing Brexit.
"Ah Brexit!" he said "We've always been against it".
"So are you going to reverse it?" I asked.
"We certainly are" he said
You heard it here first!
If you had been a Leave voter you can be assured the same LD canvasser would have told you the party would keep Brexit but just do a better job of it than the Tory Brexit.
Classic LD tactic no 1 is always tell the voter what they want to hear!
As you were the No1 apologist for the most dishonest individual ever to hold high office in the UK, it is a little rich for you to criticise a very low ranking LD canvasser for alleged flexing of the truth.
Boris beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit, exactly as he said he was going to do. In 2010 the LDs said they would abolish tuition fees, then promptly went into government and increased them
“Yorkshire’s Liz Truss”, huh? I thought she was a Buddy.
- “…makes me doubt the wisdom of laying a Labour majority at the next general election.”
Lab Maj is currently 7/2, which looks like amazingly poor value to me, and an obvious LAY. I am, of course, open to counter arguments, but it appears to me that there are only two routes to Lab Maj:
A. Labour landslide in England (45%+), or B. strong Labour recovery in Scotland (35%+)
Anybody familiar with the polling data will know that both A and B look profoundly unlikely. On a good day English Labour are hovering around the 40% mark and Scottish Labour around the 20% mark. Good, but no cigars.
Of course TSE is correct that an economic catastrophe makes A more likely, but I remain skeptical for the simple reason that so much has already gone catastrophically wrong for Cameron, May and The Oaf and yet they are still polling quite decent numbers in the low to mid 30s. If the electorate had any gumption at all the Tories would already be in the teens, or worse.
There is some speculation about inflation and our politics here. The one thing that is clear is that there is, as yet, no surge toward the conventional opposition
- “One in five UK households will be left with no savings at all by 2024. “
One of the biggest tragedies of modern society is that we ditched thrift. Consumerism will be the death of us. Quite literally.
Schools must teach basic financial survival skills to the next generations. Starting with the importance of building up a strong buffer.
- “And yet look at the Thursday poll that showed that, in a match-up of Starmer v Truss, it is Truss who is ahead by two points. Labour is in front in other surveys, of course, but given this climate it should be out of sight.”
This is the killer point: Starmer is a total dud. Any half-competent Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition ought to be smashing any and all named Con leaders off the field at this point in proceedings.
Mike Smithson is a huge fan of the Leader stats, and with good reason. They have a great track record of being better prediction tools than headline VI.
- “I asked Albrecht Ritschl, professor of economic history at the LSE, what single move the UK government could make to alleviate the pain. “Suspend Brexit for 20 years,” came the reply. He knows that’s not going to happen. But he explains that today’s crisis is not one of demand, but of supply: there’s just not enough stuff to meet demand, thanks in part to the post-Covid blockages in the global supply chain. In Britain, that’s exacerbated because we can no longer import European goods as freely or as cheaply as before.”
England and the English economy is not going to recover until they admit the horrific unforced error they have committed. I confidently predict that they won’t, and therefore can’t.
- “That decade brought a surge in political violence and a rise in support for the racist far right, in the form of the National Front. Under Boris Johnson, the Conservative party has shifted towards a nationalist populism that Truss seems unlikely to jettison. That creed is already of an ugly hue, but it could darken – especially when winter comes.”
The Conservatives are now a meld of English Nationalists, Brexit Revolutionaries and far-right thinking. It will not end well.
There is only one antidote, and that is the counter-revolution, which is inevitable. It is just a matter of time.
I've not been keeping up, is Frosty a Trusstafarian? If so there appears to be still a considerable amount of revolution to go. The flabby peer even calls it the Brexit Revolt.
People voted Conservative in 2019 to Get Brexit Done and make it go away, so we could move on.
They were sick of hearing about it. They don't want to "sustain the revolt". They want domestic public services and the economy fixed.
If voters sense that (and Labour are smart) then they will start to vote Labour the other way to make it go away again.
Yep, most people want a quiet life politically and economically. They do not want constant upheaval and confrontation. That is why they tend to react against extremism except in the most extreme circumstances. The Tories used to understand this.
It's also why lots of people used to vote Tory.
Vote Tory for stability, good governance and keeping politics boring & out your life.
It might not be very exciting but there's a big market for that.
Which is why Starmer has a chance.
Vote Starmer for stability, good governance and keeping politics boring & out of your life.
Yes, I've said before there's a conceivable strategy where Starmer can outflank there.
But, he has plenty of nutters and obsessives on his own benches who will want "radical reform".
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
John Stevens @johnestevens · 22m Liz Truss's reversal of NI hike would give a full-time worker on National Living Wage just £59, but someone on six figure salary would get more than £1,000, according to figures from Team Sunak
I’m regretting voting for Rishi now.
I have also just voted for Rishi
Not a proper Tory imo.
Rishi has always been a Tory unlike Liz
I guess you don't think W S Churchill was a proper tory on that basis?
For a time he wasn't but even Churchill never once advocated abolishing the monarchy or legalising drugs or nuclear disarmament as Truss once did
This kind of dirge is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. White middle class intellectual comedian sneers at multicultural celebration and everyone who enjoyed it purely because it doesn't fit with his narrative that the UK is the heir to Mussolini's Italy. Tired and boring writing.
Tired and boring writing, from someone we know can write eloquently and humorously.
I was canvassed by a Lib Dem yesterday who asked if there was anything I'd like to suggest.
I told him I'd suggest reversing Brexit.
"Ah Brexit!" he said "We've always been against it".
"So are you going to reverse it?" I asked.
"We certainly are" he said
You heard it here first!
If you had been a Leave voter you can be assured the same LD canvasser would have told you the party would keep Brexit but just do a better job of it than the Tory Brexit.
Classic LD tactic no 1 is always tell the voter what they want to hear!
As you were the No1 apologist for the most dishonest individual ever to hold high office in the UK, it is a little rich for you to criticise a very low ranking LD canvasser for alleged flexing of the truth.
Boris beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit, exactly as he said he was going to do. In 2010 the LDs said they would abolish tuition fees, then promptly went into government and increased them
More precisely, the Tories pushed and pushed for tuition fees to go up, offering the LibDems the chance to abstain knowing it would go through, and the stupid LibDems fell for it.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
It was the Scots that first called it the Butchers Apron wasn't it?
Kind of ironic seeing as it was often the Scottish regiments that carried out the butchery of Empire with such enthusiasm
It does help recruitment when you rob people of their land. (Cue some Unherd take about how the clearances were good for Scots.)
Most of the clearances were carried out by the Scottish nobility. I am assuming that by your ignorance of history you must be a Nat?
You intimated that Scots were British patriots in the service of starving and killing Indians. I explained the true reason. If you think English fawning supplicancy to local intrabred nobles is shared by advocates of the SNP, check yourself.
The Highland clearances were carried out by Scots, on Scots. The British army wasn't responsible, so your snide comments about recruitment are a very easily disprovable invention.
The point is simply that when people are subjected to poverty, with no means of support, it is easy to recruit them for a money wage. You invent a causation to assuage guilt about how this has worked in places where the British bore direct responsibility (Ireland; India).
Posh Scots piled into the slave trade like Colombians into cocaine, purely for the money.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
It was the Scots that first called it the Butchers Apron wasn't it?
Kind of ironic seeing as it was often the Scottish regiments that carried out the butchery of Empire with such enthusiasm
It does help recruitment when you rob people of their land. (Cue some Unherd take about how the clearances were good for Scots.)
Most of the clearances were carried out by the Scottish nobility. I am assuming that by your ignorance of history you must be a Nat?
You intimated that Scots were British patriots in the service of starving and killing Indians. I explained the true reason. If you think English fawning supplicancy to local intrabred nobles is shared by advocates of the SNP, check yourself.
The Highland clearances were carried out by Scots, on Scots. The British army wasn't responsible, so your snide comments about recruitment are a very easily disprovable invention.
The point is simply that when people are subjected to poverty, with no means of support, it is easy to recruit them for a money wage. You invent a causation to assuage guilt about how this has worked in places where the British bore direct responsibility (Ireland; India).
I don't feel any personal guilt for what Britain did in the period of Empire (or in any other period) - we followed the pattern of every pre-eminently powerful nation (both before and since), and exploited weaker parties. It is notable to me that we also did a bit of good, when it wasn't directly in our interests to do so, which I like.
The role of Scots within the Empire is worth highlighting because the trend is to portray Scotland as a helpless colony, when in fact it was a core part of Britain and a massive beneficiary of the financial rewards of Empire. It's actually quite a patronising attitude toward Scotland and the ambition and capabilities of Scottish people. The thriving of Scotland and Scots within the UK cannot be celebrated by Scottish nationalists for obvious reasons.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The problem is, no one is brave enough to stand up to this nonsense. The media egg these people on. On the Sky News Press Preview last, I got the sense Rachel Shabi and Tim Stanley wanted to call it out for what it is, but they are inhibited by the fact that Sky News along with other media outlets cover these stories as though there is something to debate.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
It was the Scots that first called it the Butchers Apron wasn't it?
Kind of ironic seeing as it was often the Scottish regiments that carried out the butchery of Empire with such enthusiasm
It does help recruitment when you rob people of their land. (Cue some Unherd take about how the clearances were good for Scots.)
Most of the clearances were carried out by the Scottish nobility. I am assuming that by your ignorance of history you must be a Nat?
You intimated that Scots were British patriots in the service of starving and killing Indians. I explained the true reason. If you think English fawning supplicancy to local intrabred nobles is shared by advocates of the SNP, check yourself.
The Highland clearances were carried out by Scots, on Scots. The British army wasn't responsible, so your snide comments about recruitment are a very easily disprovable invention.
The point is simply that when people are subjected to poverty, with no means of support, it is easy to recruit them for a money wage. You invent a causation to assuage guilt about how this has worked in places where the British bore direct responsibility (Ireland; India).
The Clearances are, like most things, quite complex. And it varied landowner to landowner.
In the islands for example, there was a collapse in the kelp trade as whaling developed in places like Whitby. Over-population was an issue (hundreds of people living on tiny Hebridean islands).
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
House prices, in case you haven't noticed, are overheating everywhere. It's a supply and demand problem.
I think it's easier to reduce planning restrictions and build, build, build where there's overheated demand than it is to take an "if you build it they will come" attitude to jobs. Build wherever there's demand. End of.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I think for a lot of people they dislike the flag because of its association with empire. Not saying that is true in your case but the national flag seems to be culturally divisive in the UK in the way that it is not in other countries.
With regard to the national anthem, I have thought for a long time that it should be 'I vow to thee my country' by Holst, but this is more a historical missed opportunity than a serious prospect for change.
If the flag of the UK was something else entirely then some would still feel the need to hate it. It's not that particular flag they hate, it's any expression of an absence of shame in the country at all.
I agree. The UK flag isn't a problem at all unless you make it a problem. You see Britons from all backgrounds proudly standing with the Union flag after sporting victories or even new Britons at citizenship ceremonies.
I can think of only two groups (three if you include Scottish nationalists but that's a given) of people who make a point of actively despising the flag as a symbol of the UK. First, the in denial Corbynites who think Starmer standing in front of it makes him a hard line nationalist. Second, the white middle class intellectuals and columnists who feel that looking down on anything British boosts their IQ by 50%.
If you want to be critical about empire, you can do it without hating everything this country now is. It's not the same place it was even in 1970, let alone during the prime years of empire.
You can be neutral about it, though. Being proud of your country feels as rational to me as being proud of rocks or the sky or the colour purple.
I don't agree that it's irrational. A country is just a large community at the end of the day so it's nice to celebrate achievements. It doesn't mean you have to wave flags and have a military parade, it's just nice to know that someone from a small island with c. 1% of the global population has done something outstanding. It should be inspiring more than anything else.
Of course, if you want to be neutral, that's no problem either, I just think people that do want to feel a bit of pride don't deserve to be sneered at.
Yeah that is fair enough. It's the backward looking and fallacious claim that pride in your country involves never conceding that it ever did anything seriously wrong which is problematic.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
I don't think it's very tasteful anyway but to be fair it's from two months ago just before the Jubilee Weekend - it was to help him be a part of it and to raise awareness for his high-court campaign. His mother was supportive.
As usual Twitter is writing like that was taken on Thursday to generate a furore.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
I do believe however the parents were entitled to move him to a hospice if they wished, the judges had already ruled his life support should be turned off anyway so could hardly complain about any risk on the journey
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
House prices, in case you haven't noticed, are overheating everywhere. It's a supply and demand problem.
I think it's easier to reduce planning restrictions and build, build, build where there's overheated demand than it is to take an "if you build it they will come" attitude to jobs. Build wherever there's demand. End of.
I think we need to understand why demand is going up though. It's not entirely explained by population growth (though perhaps is in London).
More and more people live alone out of choice (me included, though that's also cos I couldn't get a mortgage for a two-bed), and we have more single parents than before, both of whom need room for the kids.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
I do believe however the parents were entitled to move him to a hospice if they wished, the judges had already ruled his life support should be turned off anyway so could hardly complain about any risk on the journey
That's not what I'm talking about. He's been braindead for months now, why did he die in the first place, not just when his corpse stopped getting life support.
“No, we are in this mess because, for most of the twenty-first century, we have ignored economic reality in pursuit of theatrical decarbonisation. Actually, no, that understates our foolishness. Decarbonisation will happen eventually, as alternative energy sources become cheaper than fossil fuels. It is proper for governments to seek to speed that process up. But this goes well beyond emitting less CO2. Our intellectual and cultural leaders – TV producers, novelists, bishops, the lot – see fuel consumption itself as a problem. What they want is not green growth, but less growth. … But raising the price of energy is not something we can do in isolation. When power becomes more expensive, so does everything else. Fuel is not simply one among many commodities; it is the enabler of exchange, the motor of efficiency, the vector of economic growth. … When did you last hear a politician admit as much? When did you hear any public figure extol cheap energy as an agent of poverty alleviation? When did you hear any historian describe how coal and later oil liberated the mass of humanity from back-breaking drudgery and led to the elimination of slavery?”
Hang on a minute. Where is the bountiful cheap energy we have been ignoring?
Gas? This *was* cheap. But the free market "Dash for Gas" allowed scumbags like Norweb build gas-fired power stations to burn North Sea reserves in a decade. Which makes us reliant on imported gas from dodgy places which isn't cheao.
Coal? We *could* have invested in CCS and kept places like Drax open, burning domestic coal and pumping the emissions underground. But no, coal miners are communists.
Nuclear? The chance for a renaissance of British nuclear was killed by Nick Clegg in 2010. So what we have is now decades late and absurdly expensive.
Which leaves renewables. We *could* have been leading on this. We have a lot of wind turbines - built by countries like Germany - and increasingly solar. With absurd rigged transmission prices to make it expensive despite us having so much available. Put solar and a battery on every new build for the last decade and that would have made a real difference.
So what is Hannanananan drooling on about?
It shows that extremism can come from any part of the political spectrum.
Nick Clegg was "a centrist" but had extreme pro-Europe views and extreme anti-Nuclear views.
And we'd have suffered for both if he'd had his way.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
House prices, in case you haven't noticed, are overheating everywhere. It's a supply and demand problem.
I think it's easier to reduce planning restrictions and build, build, build where there's overheated demand than it is to take an "if you build it they will come" attitude to jobs. Build wherever there's demand. End of.
What’s required is a combination of building in areas of current high demand for housing, alongside encouragement to job creators to create jobs in areas of current low supply of employment. Encouraging more remote work might be a good starting point here. If one only needs to go to the office occasionally, they can live within a much larger radius than if they were commuting daily.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
I do believe however the parents were entitled to move him to a hospice if they wished, the judges had already ruled his life support should be turned off anyway so could hardly complain about any risk on the journey
That is not right. It places an extraordinary and pointless responsibility on the medical team, because if he "dies" in an accident in transit they don't get any sort of get out of jail free card from the fact he was due to be unplugged. and what earthly difference is there in these circs between a hospice and a hospital? It really was just one last thing to go to court about.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
I keep saying to everyone.... LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH BUILD COSTS. Build costs in the south east are rising to £2000- £3000 per square metre. A typical 100sqm house costs £250,000 just to build. Before land and developer profit is factored in to the equation.
The reality is that it is now too expensive to build houses. There is this giant supertanker of a development industry, it keeps going, but unless something changes - IE build costs decrease or property prices increase substantially, it will be existentially damaged.
In large parts of the country, interest rate rises are largely going to constrain the ability for property prices to increase. Its a very worrying situation.
You keep saying it but you've provided no source for those figures.
Considering that homes are built around here for a fraction of that price, I think those numbers are probably bullshit. Most likely by including land, planning etc and profits in the equation already.
Have you a source for those figures?
The definitive source is RICS BCIS costs but unfortunately they are commercially sensitive and require a subscription to access.
"House Build Cost per Square Metre in the UK Building costs in the UK start from £1,750 per square metre.
And, In 2022, a cost estimation for a house is anywhere between £1,750 and £3,000 per m2.
Along with these costs, you will need to allow an extra 15% of the building cost to cover the costs of hiring your architect, engineer and project managers (or a multidisciplinary architecture practice such as us!) as well as other miscellaneous consultants needed to execute your project. You will also need to allow an extra 8% of the building cost for statutory consents and contingencies.
You can calculate the cost of building your new house in pounds per square metre of the floor area, so the bigger the floor area, the greater the overall cost. Most of the major housebuilders in the UK use RICS's cost per square metre and schedule of rates to get a complete breakdown of their construction cost.
You could also try doing a self build cost calculation. Even a basic bog standard brick bungalow costs £2000 per sqm.
I originally thought exactly the same as you, that this is all bullsh*t, lies from developers. Maybe there is some of that going on. But the deeper reality is that the rise is real and driven by increasing regulation, material and labour costs.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
I do believe however the parents were entitled to move him to a hospice if they wished, the judges had already ruled his life support should be turned off anyway so could hardly complain about any risk on the journey
That's not what I'm talking about. He's been braindead for months now, why did he die in the first place, not just when his corpse stopped getting life support.
Yes, he was perfectly healthy until March and the allegation is he was doing a TikTok "blackout" challenge, which went very wrong for him.
There's all sorts of questions we should be asking about this. But we're not.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
House prices, in case you haven't noticed, are overheating everywhere. It's a supply and demand problem.
I think it's easier to reduce planning restrictions and build, build, build where there's overheated demand than it is to take an "if you build it they will come" attitude to jobs. Build wherever there's demand. End of.
No, because even outside of housing, we need to level up the country and not rely on London and Scotland. The way to do that is build new homes or even new towns, which will create more jobs and prosperity in the frozen north, coastal towns or wherever else is chosen.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already
Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.
Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
I do believe however the parents were entitled to move him to a hospice if they wished, the judges had already ruled his life support should be turned off anyway so could hardly complain about any risk on the journey
I agree. Reminds me of that kid who they wanted to die of cancer in their 'care' that the parents had to basically kidnap and take overseas for treatment. Who then recovered.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
The press aren't buying it. Note they just report the claim every time it comes up, without a 4 page investigative special about the wave of similar cases sweeping the world.
That’s one of the most sensible things he’s said during the campaign. At least both candidates understand that education needs serious reform.
Whether they can actually effect meaningful reform, is of course a question left to the reader.
Agree, he's right. Let's hope this gets adopted whoever wins.
I know a few people who have done what small minded traditionalists would think of as "crap degrees" and have gone on to earn salaries that are probably far in excess of said small minded zealots. Who, prey, is the arbiter of what is a "crap" degree FFS? If they are crap, people will cease to do them.
I'm sure that's true. I studied with several people doing crap degrees, and they were a complete waste of time. The content could have been covered in a single year, and the only beneficiaries were local hostelries.
There may be some courses like that, but a university degree is not just a matter of content. If you are interested only in acquiring information, all you need to do is to read the right text books, and there is no need to go to university at all.
Really, studying at university is all about learning how to think. To read, to write, to weigh up ideas and assess the evidence that justifies them, to organise material and make a convincing case.
If our education system is as bad as many people claim, after forty years of direct interference and control from Conservative centralised government, then there is a very real need for these skills to be developed. That is something that takes more than a few months.
If a university course is not developing these skills, then quite clearly it is producing "crap degrees", and I would be the last to defend them. But they were what the Conservatives themselves created, weren't they?
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already
Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.
Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.
Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.
There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
The trouble with that argument is that it becomes a neverland. Are we telling people caught up in the housing crisis that they have to move to areas with no employment and decaying infrastructure and hope that eventually levelling up works? Or that they need to carry on renting in the South until the rest of the country is ready? The one thing that could really help is the move to home working. I find it depressing that government and business are beginning to fight this shift in the name of a return to normal.
You'd have to go to some very distant and isolated places to find somewhere with no employment currently.
That’s one of the most sensible things he’s said during the campaign. At least both candidates understand that education needs serious reform.
Whether they can actually effect meaningful reform, is of course a question left to the reader.
Agree, he's right. Let's hope this gets adopted whoever wins.
I know a few people who have done what small minded traditionalists would think of as "crap degrees" and have gone on to earn salaries that are probably far in excess of said small minded zealots. Who, prey, is the arbiter of what is a "crap" degree FFS? If they are crap, people will cease to do them.
I'm sure that's true. I studied with several people doing crap degrees, and they were a complete waste of time. The content could have been covered in a single year, and the only beneficiaries were local hostelries.
There may be some courses like that, but a university degree is not just a matter of content. If you are interested only in acquiring information, all you need to do is to read the right text books, and there is no need to go to university at all.
Really, studying at university is all about learning how to think. To read, to write, to weigh up ideas and assess the evidence that justifies them, to organise material and make a convincing case.
If our education system is as bad as many people claim, after forty years of direct interference and control from Conservative centralised government, then there is a very real need for these skills to be developed. That is something that takes more than a few months.
If a university course is not developing these skills, then quite clearly it is producing "crap degrees", and I would be the last to defend them. But they were what the Conservatives themselves created, weren't they?
I generally go along with the idea that universities (particularly humanities degrees) teach people to think, and wouldn't want to try and deny anyone the right to go to University to experience that.
But I've also found that people who didn't to a degree, or who did a vocational degree much later in their lives; can think, weigh up, present evidence in a professional context just as well as someone who went to a top university. So my experience is simply that going to do an arts degree is not the only way you can build up these types of skills. Universities shouldn't have any special status in this respect.
I would add that, if universities go along with the current fashion of censoring viewpoints, arguments and thinkers that students find offensive, then they can't really claim to be teaching people to think for themselves.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
The press aren't buying it. Note they just report the claim every time it comes up, without a 4 page investigative special about the wave of similar cases sweeping the world.
The Star article mentioned two similar deaths in the States.
If such a challenge exists (and presumably the existence of it is not in dispute), and is accessible to kids, that has to be stopped. It is not the same as violent computer games and gun crime - there may be a link there too, but this would be kids directly participating in something that encouraged them to find inventive ways to lose consciousness - you don't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous that is.
The criticism of the Union Flag not including representation from Wales is a bit unfair, since when Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom the concept of national flags didn't really exist. Individuals and families had their own arms which would be used on flags, and it does seem as though there is some continuity in the arms used by the Princes of Gwynedd and those used by the Kings of England, though these have varied over time, and I haven't found a definitive chronology.
Incidentally, it seems that the Welsh mostly used lions at the time, as used to represent England on the Royal Standard today, and it was Wessex that used dragons, so I'm not sure where the modern usage of a dragon on the Welsh flag comes from... seems that it was a standard used by the Tudors, who seemed to have adopted an English symbol as a means to disguise their Welsh takeover of the English crown, which itself uses Welsh symbols as a means to disguise the English takeover of Wales, and now the English think that "three lions" are English, and the Welsh think the dragon is Welsh, when they were once contrarywise.
So the concept of uniquely Welsh, or uniquely English symbols, seems to be a bit muddy in the history.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
The press aren't buying it. Note they just report the claim every time it comes up, without a 4 page investigative special about the wave of similar cases sweeping the world.
The Star article mentioned two similar deaths in the States.
If such a challenge exists (and presumably the existence of it is not in dispute), and is accessible to kids, that has to be stopped. It is not the same as violent computer games and gun crime - there may be a link there too, but this would be kids directly participating in something that encouraged them to find inventive ways to lose consciousness - you don't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous that is.
Yes, sure. Children gonna do dangerous things though. The consensus seems to be that it's not much of a thing, to the extent it is a thing it is not particularly internet related. (compare and contrast some bollocks about eating dishwasher tablets or something which really did happen).
Anyway the boys own devices plus tiktok servers should be conclusive one way or the other.
The criticism of the Union Flag not including representation from Wales is a bit unfair, since when Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom the concept of national flags didn't really exist. Individuals and families had their own arms which would be used on flags, and it does seem as though there is some continuity in the arms used by the Princes of Gwynedd and those used by the Kings of England, though these have varied over time, and I haven't found a definitive chronology.
Incidentally, it seems that the Welsh mostly used lions at the time, as used to represent England on the Royal Standard today, and it was Wessex that used dragons, so I'm not sure where the modern usage of a dragon on the Welsh flag comes from... seems that it was a standard used by the Tudors, who seemed to have adopted an English symbol as a means to disguise their Welsh takeover of the English crown, which itself uses Welsh symbols as a means to disguise the English takeover of Wales, and now the English think that "three lions" are English, and the Welsh think the dragon is Welsh, when they were once contrarywise.
So the concept of uniquely Welsh, or uniquely English symbols, seems to be a bit muddy in the history.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Three, surely? St George, St Andrew and St Patrick.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
Natural dyes are always going to vary initially, and then fade. Presumably why awarding new colours is a thing.
This allegedly is also why proper countries tend to have red white blue only, because pre artificial dyes that's pretty much all that's available.
The Union Jack is the only national flag adopted and worn by people around the world - EVEN BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T ASSOCIATE IT WITH BRITAIN AND DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT BRITAIN
They do it because they love its unique and distinctive design. It looks cool to them. That’s it
Here it is being used on some hot pants in Thailand
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
The press aren't buying it. Note they just report the claim every time it comes up, without a 4 page investigative special about the wave of similar cases sweeping the world.
The Star article mentioned two similar deaths in the States.
If such a challenge exists (and presumably the existence of it is not in dispute), and is accessible to kids, that has to be stopped. It is not the same as violent computer games and gun crime - there may be a link there too, but this would be kids directly participating in something that encouraged them to find inventive ways to lose consciousness - you don't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous that is.
Yes, sure. Children gonna do dangerous things though. The consensus seems to be that it's not much of a thing, to the extent it is a thing it is not particularly internet related. (compare and contrast some bollocks about eating dishwasher tablets or something which really did happen).
Anyway the boys own devices plus tiktok servers should be conclusive one way or the other.
If they can get into them? Will tiktok disclose the activity?
I thought it was interesting that the police disclosed in that BBC Eccelston burglary documentary that they try to surprise criminals on arrest in order to access their unlocked phones.
That’s one of the most sensible things he’s said during the campaign. At least both candidates understand that education needs serious reform.
Whether they can actually effect meaningful reform, is of course a question left to the reader.
Agree, he's right. Let's hope this gets adopted whoever wins.
I know a few people who have done what small minded traditionalists would think of as "crap degrees" and have gone on to earn salaries that are probably far in excess of said small minded zealots. Who, prey, is the arbiter of what is a "crap" degree FFS? If they are crap, people will cease to do them.
I'm sure that's true. I studied with several people doing crap degrees, and they were a complete waste of time. The content could have been covered in a single year, and the only beneficiaries were local hostelries.
There may be some courses like that, but a university degree is not just a matter of content. If you are interested only in acquiring information, all you need to do is to read the right text books, and there is no need to go to university at all.
Really, studying at university is all about learning how to think. To read, to write, to weigh up ideas and assess the evidence that justifies them, to organise material and make a convincing case.
If our education system is as bad as many people claim, after forty years of direct interference and control from Conservative centralised government, then there is a very real need for these skills to be developed. That is something that takes more than a few months.
If a university course is not developing these skills, then quite clearly it is producing "crap degrees", and I would be the last to defend them. But they were what the Conservatives themselves created, weren't they?
Labour started the 'all must have degrees' policy. Universities have simply been exploiting that opportunity.
What they really should have done was try to enhance the status of non-degree qualifications in things that we really need.
The criticism of the Union Flag not including representation from Wales is a bit unfair, since when Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom the concept of national flags didn't really exist. Individuals and families had their own arms which would be used on flags, and it does seem as though there is some continuity in the arms used by the Princes of Gwynedd and those used by the Kings of England, though these have varied over time, and I haven't found a definitive chronology.
Incidentally, it seems that the Welsh mostly used lions at the time, as used to represent England on the Royal Standard today, and it was Wessex that used dragons, so I'm not sure where the modern usage of a dragon on the Welsh flag comes from... seems that it was a standard used by the Tudors, who seemed to have adopted an English symbol as a means to disguise their Welsh takeover of the English crown, which itself uses Welsh symbols as a means to disguise the English takeover of Wales, and now the English think that "three lions" are English, and the Welsh think the dragon is Welsh, when they were once contrarywise.
So the concept of uniquely Welsh, or uniquely English symbols, seems to be a bit muddy in the history.
It's a reference to Cadwaladr, a mythical king in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Brittaniae whose nickname was 'Y Draig Goch' (the red dragon). Cadwaladr is variously said to be based on Caedwallon, a Welsh leader in the 7th century who conquered parts of what became Wessex, Vortigern, a King of Gwynedd in the sub-Roman period, and Magnus Maximus, known as Macsen Wladig.
The Union Jack is the only national flag adopted and worn by people around the world - EVEN BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T ASSOCIATE IT WITH BRITAIN AND DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT BRITAIN
They do it because they love its unique and distinctive design. It looks cool to them. That’s it
Here it is being used on some hot pants in Thailand
I think the US flag is too. But yes, it's a powerful design.
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
Without wanting a protracted discussion on a sad topic, why did he?
Suicide.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
Ok, so I have now read (in the Daily Star no less) that his Mum blames a 'blackout challenge' on Tiktok. If it exists, a link will be pretty easy to establish - what he was viewing via his Tiktok account, whether he was filming, whether he'd posted anything similar. It is shockingly sad whatever the circumstances.
The press aren't buying it. Note they just report the claim every time it comes up, without a 4 page investigative special about the wave of similar cases sweeping the world.
The Star article mentioned two similar deaths in the States.
If such a challenge exists (and presumably the existence of it is not in dispute), and is accessible to kids, that has to be stopped. It is not the same as violent computer games and gun crime - there may be a link there too, but this would be kids directly participating in something that encouraged them to find inventive ways to lose consciousness - you don't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous that is.
Yes, sure. Children gonna do dangerous things though. The consensus seems to be that it's not much of a thing, to the extent it is a thing it is not particularly internet related. (compare and contrast some bollocks about eating dishwasher tablets or something which really did happen).
Anyway the boys own devices plus tiktok servers should be conclusive one way or the other.
If they can get into them? Will tiktok disclose the activity?
I thought it was interesting that the police disclosed in that BBC Eccelston burglary documentary that they try to surprise criminals on arrest in order to access their unlocked phones.
See also poor old Dread Pirate Roberts
Ulbricht was first connected to "Dread Pirate Roberts" by Gary Alford, an Internal Revenue Service investigator working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the Silk Road case, in mid-2013.[23][24] The connection was made by linking the username "altoid", used during Silk Road's early days to announce the website, and a forum post in which Ulbricht, posting under the nickname "altoid", asked for programming help and gave his email address, which contained his full name.[23] In October 2013 Ulbricht was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation while at the Glen Park branch of the San Francisco Public Library, and accused of being the "mastermind" behind the site.[25][26][27]
To prevent Ulbricht from encrypting or deleting files on the laptop he was using to run the site as he was arrested, two agents pretended to be quarreling lovers. When they had sufficiently distracted him,[28] according to Joshuah Bearman of Wired, the two agents then quickly moved in to arrest him while a third agent grabbed the laptop and handed it to agent Thomas Kiernan.[29] Kiernan then inserted a flash drive in one of the laptop's USB ports, with software that copied key files.[28]
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
Natural dyes are always going to vary initially, and then fade. Presumably why awarding new colours is a thing.
This allegedly is also why proper countries tend to have red white blue only, because pre artificial dyes that's pretty much all that's available.
And purple the colour of royalty. Expensive stuff, made from snails.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
That’s one of the most sensible things he’s said during the campaign. At least both candidates understand that education needs serious reform.
Whether they can actually effect meaningful reform, is of course a question left to the reader.
Agree, he's right. Let's hope this gets adopted whoever wins.
I know a few people who have done what small minded traditionalists would think of as "crap degrees" and have gone on to earn salaries that are probably far in excess of said small minded zealots. Who, prey, is the arbiter of what is a "crap" degree FFS? If they are crap, people will cease to do them.
I'm sure that's true. I studied with several people doing crap degrees, and they were a complete waste of time. The content could have been covered in a single year, and the only beneficiaries were local hostelries.
There may be some courses like that, but a university degree is not just a matter of content. If you are interested only in acquiring information, all you need to do is to read the right text books, and there is no need to go to university at all.
Really, studying at university is all about learning how to think. To read, to write, to weigh up ideas and assess the evidence that justifies them, to organise material and make a convincing case.
If our education system is as bad as many people claim, after forty years of direct interference and control from Conservative centralised government, then there is a very real need for these skills to be developed. That is something that takes more than a few months.
If a university course is not developing these skills, then quite clearly it is producing "crap degrees", and I would be the last to defend them. But they were what the Conservatives themselves created, weren't they?
Labour started the 'all must have degrees' policy. Universities have simply been exploiting that opportunity.
What they really should have done was try to enhance the status of non-degree qualifications in things that we really need.
That, and encourage employers to offer degree apprenticeships, for example in engineering and architecture.
It shouldn’t be too difficult, for a dozen large firms all looking for aeronautical engineers (BAe, Airbus, RR Aero, half the F1 teams) to get together and design a course in conjunction with a university, for their apprentices.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
Natural dyes are always going to vary initially, and then fade. Presumably why awarding new colours is a thing.
This allegedly is also why proper countries tend to have red white blue only, because pre artificial dyes that's pretty much all that's available.
And purple the colour of royalty. Expensive stuff, made from snails.
What about yellow? Very easy dye, made from daffodils.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
Because it matches the old passports, which were such a deep blue they are almost a true black.
James Bond's dinner suits are always midnight blue not black, so it comes out true black not greyish or brownish on film.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
I think it's simply because the original passport very dark navy blue didn't try to match the UF royal blue anyway - and if you changed either there'd be hell to pay with the Tory Party members/DE readers/etc.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
I don't understand why there wasn't an option to get the Scottish version of the cost of arms on the front.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
I don't understand why there wasn't an option to get the Scottish version of the cost of arms on the front.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already
Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.
Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.
Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.
There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average
Categorically wrong, native population is growing.
10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.
House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I completely disagree about the flag, much as I'm instinctively wary of nationalism.
Blue, white and red are a great colour combination, as you can see in this great knitted shawl.
The flag has rotational symmetry, which is genius and distinctive. And it's way more interesting than the dull, dull, dull tricolours used by so many countries.
The Union flag is a genius design. It conforms to the basic principles of logo design; it is unlikely to be confused with others (unlike so many tricolour designs) and it can be reduced to a tiny size and is still recognisable. I cannot see what is not to like unless one is inherently anti-British or a self-loathing Corbynite.
Ask somebody from Wales and they may be able to assist.
I used to live in Wales many years ago, and once went out with a very attractive Welsh lass. They all seemed quite keen on the Union Flag which they held in equal esteem to their beautiful Welsh one, so sorry, no idea what you are on about.
You think the design of the Union flag, which incorporates flags from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from no other country, is "genius", and you "cannot see" what is not to like about it unless a person is "inherently" (whatever that means) "anti-British" or a supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine if it were made from flags representing only Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and take it from there.
It is a flag. Get over it. It also incorporates two Christian crosses. Perhaps the Scots should change theirs too? Maybe just a plain blue in case it offends any non-Christians? Though maybe the blue might be a little offensive to women or LBGT people? Maybe we should have no flags?
Scotland only standardised the Saltire in 2003. The blue is now lighter than the blue in the Union Flag, apparently reflecting the blue that was used before the Union.
I think that's just someone belatedly getting round to finding the appropriate Pantone [edit] as a guide to designers of corporate stuff. The blue was always lighter anyway even when I was young - distinct from the royal blue of the UJ.
Wikipedia suggests that historically there were always greater variations in the shade of blue used, and a darker shade may have been settled on for naval use of the flag, because the dye used was harder-wearing at sea.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
They should all be standarised to the distinguished pigment UK Passport Blue, which would be entirely uncontroversial until it's discovered that the dye is made in Poland or some such foreign land.
I can't quite understand why the blue of the passports doesn't match the blue now standardised for the Union flag. Would seem obvious to match the two.
Because it matches the old passports, which were such a deep blue they are almost a true black.
James Bond's dinner suits are always midnight blue not black, so it comes out true black not greyish or brownish on film.
Ferrari F1 cars are a slightly different shade of red to the road cars - but they look the same if you see the race car on TV and the road car in the flesh.
(The road car is called Rosso Corsa, the race car is Rosso Scuderia, the latter being a slightly lighter shade).
The Union Jack is the only national flag adopted and worn by people around the world - EVEN BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T ASSOCIATE IT WITH BRITAIN AND DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT BRITAIN
They do it because they love its unique and distinctive design. It looks cool to them. That’s it
Here it is being used on some hot pants in Thailand
I think the US flag is too. But yes, it's a powerful design.
And please never show us your hot pants again.
Not really true, however (not the hotpants, the flag thing). As may be obvious I travel a lot and I see the UJ everywhere - recently, Armenia, which was very surprising. What do they know of us? Very littie. Yet they love the UJ and you see it all the time in the streets of Yerevan. On teeshirts, on bags, on jeans, on phonecases
The Stars and Stripes is very occasionally seen as a fashionable motif (it happens but it is much rarer). And this is true around the world
Of course this might be because the Stars and Stripes really IS associated with a country, by all, and it a country which is highly controversial amongst many, so you'd need a much better reason to sport it other than fashion. Wearing the US flag feels like much more of a political statement
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The odd thing with this case is nobody is discussing why the poor child died.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
There will ba an inquest at some point. I think from what I’ve seen suicide is likely, which may be why the mother in particular has been so desperate not to have the ‘chance’ of recovery removed, as he ain’t getting into Christian heaven.
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
On Archie thing, nobody believes it was really a TikTok thing right?
Schoolteacher and social worker types love to badmouth families when something bad happens to a child. Working class families, that is. They don't do it when "something happens" at a Clarendon school. They wouldn't dare. That would be a crime against caste. But when it's a proletarian family, "Ooh, she has loads of men in, they all do - I'm not surprised that her child xxxxx". They gossip and think they're in the know.
The denouncers of the notion that there's any kind of a problem requiring government action when a global corporation (even if it weren't Chinese-owned) helps children to spread videos of themselves causing themselves to pass out, and in some cases die, need to take their heads out of their bums. I wonder if a single one of them has heard of the Werther effect? They should put it together with the plague of smartphone and "social media" addiction and see what they get. And no the issue isn't let's all play forensics experts and opine on what happened in one particular case, although the spreading of the idea that Tiktok had nothing to do with it ("it's a red herring", etc.) is certainly of critical interest.
Was speaking to a friend the other day whose daughter is at Cambridge. She told them of a suicide of a friend of hers. Turns out there have been several suicides at Cambridge and scratching deeper, at many other universities also.
Each one an individual tragedy obvs, with as many reasons as occurrences but I can't believe that lockdown was not a factor.
On Archie thing, nobody believes it was really a TikTok thing right?
Schoolteacher and social worker types love to badmouth families when something bad happens to a child. Working class families, that is. They don't do it when "something happens" at a Clarendon school. They wouldn't dare. That would be a crime against caste. But when it's a proletarian family, "Ooh, she has loads of men in, they all do - I'm not surprised that her child xxxxx". They gossip and think they're in the know.
Good to see Communist ideology is still alive and well in Russia, even if it has still not managed to gain a passing acquaintance with reality.
Comments
Build costs in the south east are rising to £2000- £3000 per square metre.
A typical 100sqm house costs £250,000 just to build.
Before land and developer profit is factored in to the equation.
The reality is that it is now too expensive to build houses.
There is this giant supertanker of a development industry, it keeps going, but unless something changes - IE build costs decrease or property prices increase substantially, it will be existentially damaged.
In large parts of the country, interest rate rises are largely going to constrain the ability for property prices to increase. Its a very worrying situation.
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1556029166612631557?s=21&t=sLOZ03lD4mZjZ6JaYGZH_A
Especially when as Sunak plans you increase taxes on those who work for a living, and use those tax rises to fund a tax cut on those who do not. While triple-lock aiding those who do not too.
Considering that homes are built around here for a fraction of that price, I think those numbers are probably bullshit. Most likely by including land, planning etc and profits in the equation already.
Have you a source for those figures?
In 2010 the LDs said they would abolish tuition fees, then promptly went into government and increased them
But, he has plenty of nutters and obsessives on his own benches who will want "radical reform".
https://www.spanglefish.com/slavesandhighlanders/
The role of Scots within the Empire is worth highlighting because the trend is to portray Scotland as a helpless colony, when in fact it was a core part of Britain and a massive beneficiary of the financial rewards of Empire. It's actually quite a patronising attitude toward Scotland and the ambition and capabilities of Scottish people. The thriving of Scotland and Scots within the UK cannot be celebrated by Scottish nationalists for obvious reasons.
And that's not turning life support off when he was already dead. Why he died before then.
In the islands for example, there was a collapse in the kelp trade as whaling developed in places like Whitby. Over-population was an issue (hundreds of people living on tiny Hebridean islands).
It's like blaming video games for mass-shootings.
I think it's easier to reduce planning restrictions and build, build, build where there's overheated demand than it is to take an "if you build it they will come" attitude to jobs. Build wherever there's demand. End of.
As usual Twitter is writing like that was taken on Thursday to generate a furore.
His mum started a red herring that it was a tiktok game. This has been roundly and comprehensibly disproven.
And not like it won't be discussed, there will now necessarily be an inquest.
More and more people live alone out of choice (me included, though that's also cos I couldn't get a mortgage for a two-bed), and we have more single parents than before, both of whom need room for the kids.
Nick Clegg was "a centrist" but had extreme pro-Europe views and extreme anti-Nuclear views.
And we'd have suffered for both if he'd had his way.
But if you do a google search, then you can see that the figures I've quoted are in the right ballpark.
IE: https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/cost-to-build-a-house-uk/
"House Build Cost per Square Metre in the UK
Building costs in the UK start from £1,750 per square metre.
And, In 2022, a cost estimation for a house is anywhere between £1,750 and £3,000 per m2.
Along with these costs, you will need to allow an extra 15% of the building cost to cover the costs of hiring your architect, engineer and project managers (or a multidisciplinary architecture practice such as us!) as well as other miscellaneous consultants needed to execute your project. You will also need to allow an extra 8% of the building cost for statutory consents and contingencies.
You can calculate the cost of building your new house in pounds per square metre of the floor area, so the bigger the floor area, the greater the overall cost. Most of the major housebuilders in the UK use RICS's cost per square metre and schedule of rates to get a complete breakdown of their construction cost.
You could also try doing a self build cost calculation. Even a basic bog standard brick bungalow costs £2000 per sqm.
https://www.self-build.co.uk/build-cost-calculator/
Also, you could try doing a rebuild estimate for insurance purposes.
https://calculator.bcis.co.uk/
I originally thought exactly the same as you, that this is all bullsh*t, lies from developers. Maybe there is some of that going on. But the deeper reality is that the rise is real and driven by increasing regulation, material and labour costs.
There's all sorts of questions we should be asking about this. But we're not.
Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.
Really, studying at university is all about learning how to think. To read, to write, to weigh up ideas and assess the evidence that justifies them, to organise material and make a convincing case.
If our education system is as bad as many people claim, after forty years of direct interference and control from Conservative centralised government, then there is a very real need for these skills to be developed. That is something that takes more than a few months.
If a university course is not developing these skills, then quite clearly it is producing "crap degrees", and I would be the last to defend them. But they were what the Conservatives themselves created, weren't they?
Let's halve it.
And make them all free.
Job done
There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average
They (mostly) vote Labour. The seats in the University towns are almost all Labour held.
So, the Labour party is not going to do this.
But I've also found that people who didn't to a degree, or who did a vocational degree much later in their lives; can think, weigh up, present evidence in a professional context just as well as someone who went to a top university. So my experience is simply that going to do an arts degree is not the only way you can build up these types of skills. Universities shouldn't have any special status in this respect.
I would add that, if universities go along with the current fashion of censoring viewpoints, arguments and thinkers that students find offensive, then they can't really claim to be teaching people to think for themselves.
If such a challenge exists (and presumably the existence of it is not in dispute), and is accessible to kids, that has to be stopped. It is not the same as violent computer games and gun crime - there may be a link there too, but this would be kids directly participating in something that encouraged them to find inventive ways to lose consciousness - you don't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous that is.
Incidentally, it seems that the Welsh mostly used lions at the time, as used to represent England on the Royal Standard today, and it was Wessex that used dragons, so I'm not sure where the modern usage of a dragon on the Welsh flag comes from... seems that it was a standard used by the Tudors, who seemed to have adopted an English symbol as a means to disguise their Welsh takeover of the English crown, which itself uses Welsh symbols as a means to disguise the English takeover of Wales, and now the English think that "three lions" are English, and the Welsh think the dragon is Welsh, when they were once contrarywise.
So the concept of uniquely Welsh, or uniquely English symbols, seems to be a bit muddy in the history.
Flag of Wales.
Glyndŵr's Banner and Arms of Llywelyn.
Anyway the boys own devices plus tiktok servers should be conclusive one way or the other.
It looks like other organisations who use the St Andrew's cross use a variety of different shades of blue, so it would be wrong to think of either the Union flag blue, or the blue now defined for the Scottish flag, as the correct blue to use, and that the shade was changed for nefarious reasons at the time of the Union, or to encourage separatism when the shade was defined for the Scottish flag in 2003.
This allegedly is also why proper countries tend to have red white blue only, because pre artificial dyes that's pretty much all that's available.
They do it because they love its unique and distinctive design. It looks cool to them. That’s it
Here it is being used on some hot pants in Thailand
I thought it was interesting that the police disclosed in that BBC Eccelston burglary documentary that they try to surprise criminals on arrest in order to access their unlocked phones.
What they really should have done was try to enhance the status of non-degree qualifications in things that we really need.
And please never show us your hot pants again.
Ulbricht was first connected to "Dread Pirate Roberts" by Gary Alford, an Internal Revenue Service investigator working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the Silk Road case, in mid-2013.[23][24] The connection was made by linking the username "altoid", used during Silk Road's early days to announce the website, and a forum post in which Ulbricht, posting under the nickname "altoid", asked for programming help and gave his email address, which contained his full name.[23] In October 2013 Ulbricht was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation while at the Glen Park branch of the San Francisco Public Library, and accused of being the "mastermind" behind the site.[25][26][27]
To prevent Ulbricht from encrypting or deleting files on the laptop he was using to run the site as he was arrested, two agents pretended to be quarreling lovers. When they had sufficiently distracted him,[28] according to Joshuah Bearman of Wired, the two agents then quickly moved in to arrest him while a third agent grabbed the laptop and handed it to agent Thomas Kiernan.[29] Kiernan then inserted a flash drive in one of the laptop's USB ports, with software that copied key files.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Arrest
It shouldn’t be too difficult, for a dozen large firms all looking for aeronautical engineers (BAe, Airbus, RR Aero, half the F1 teams) to get together and design a course in conjunction with a university, for their apprentices.
James Bond's dinner suits are always midnight blue not black, so it comes out true black not greyish or brownish on film.
10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.
House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.
(The road car is called Rosso Corsa, the race car is Rosso Scuderia, the latter being a slightly lighter shade).
The Stars and Stripes is very occasionally seen as a fashionable motif (it happens but it is much rarer). And this is true around the world
Of course this might be because the Stars and Stripes really IS associated with a country, by all, and it a country which is highly controversial amongst many, so you'd need a much better reason to sport it other than fashion. Wearing the US flag feels like much more of a political statement
https://twitter.com/LauraJedeed/status/1555957274157486080?s=20&t=fNXirDBGuhjXG-4Ud_cvsg
Rosso Scuderia is a no cost option on the road cars now. My cousin ordered his 296GTB in that colour because he's a dickhead.
The denouncers of the notion that there's any kind of a problem requiring government action when a global corporation (even if it weren't Chinese-owned) helps children to spread videos of themselves causing themselves to pass out, and in some cases die, need to take their heads out of their bums. I wonder if a single one of them has heard of the Werther effect? They should put it together with the plague of smartphone and "social media" addiction and see what they get. And no the issue isn't let's all play forensics experts and opine on what happened in one particular case, although the spreading of the idea that Tiktok had nothing to do with it ("it's a red herring", etc.) is certainly of critical interest.
Was speaking to a friend the other day whose daughter is at Cambridge. She told them of a suicide of a friend of hers. Turns out there have been several suicides at Cambridge and scratching deeper, at many other universities also.
Each one an individual tragedy obvs, with as many reasons as occurrences but I can't believe that lockdown was not a factor.
https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1556240417917747203