re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
It's a pointless question though. A better question is should the UK apply to rejoin the EU.
We rejoin. We experience similar challenges on uneven and weak growth, high EU migration and some new ones on political union. And new EU regulations coming in we don't like. Everyone is frustrated. 5 years later there's a poll:
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to re-join the European Union?
Right to Rejoin: 34% (-12) Wrong to Rejoin: 54% (+10)
The existing Brexit settlement clearly isn't politically sustainable as-is but neither is it as simple as going back to square one and pretending that it'd fix everything and the issues that led us to leave were never really there.
Quite. The statecraft failure was well before 2016. It was when the EU became both difficult -near impossible - to leave and, with the UK government support, had tied itself into positions (Euro, ECB, powerless parliament, FoM) the UK popular vote could never truly own or love while promising but never delivering referendums over the changes.
The balance was so fine that a tiny derogation/brake from FoM for good reasons would have achieved a 'Remain' win. The failure to do so meant to popular opinion that the EU was hopelessly committed to fundamentalist positions despite the stark nature of the facts. Which revealed its true nature.
That's why Brexit won, and it was right that it did.
https://twitter.com/troy_senik/status/1592736628883492864 Seeing as this the one moment where being a Grover Cleveland biographer has any social utility, let me save you all a lot of Googling: Cleveland and Trump are starkly dissimilar figures…
… One detail underscores the contrast better than any other. When Cleveland lost the 1888 election, some of his supporters suggested the election had been stolen from him. This was not implausible, as there was real electoral chicanery afoot in those days…
… though it’s very unlikely it actually affected the outcome.
But when Cleveland was asked why he thought he had lost, he simply replied, “It was mainly because the other party had the most votes.”
Even when Trump won the other party had the most votes.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Good for you posting it. It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Go on then - what is the point?
The utility of making public opinion… public ought to be obvious. Or would you prefer our leaders to press on regardless, making policy on the basis of their gut feeling about what we all think ?
Depends if they agree with me (wisdom of crowds, true democracy) or not (they don't know the facts).
But one other thing... Does the chain go unpopular Conservatives dragging Brexit down or unpopular Brexit dragging Conservatives down? Or a bit of both?
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
A friend tells me the only time he has regretted owning a 75 inch tv was when he watched home made porn on it, shot in 4K HDR on an iPhone.
The evidence builds for Karl Marx being right that the development of the relations of production lags far behind the development of the means of production...
Next, Elon Musk sets up a Mars base where astronauts can all have a J Arthur.
Ned Ludd, now there was a Yorkshireman who had a point.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Good for you posting it. It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Go on then - what is the point?
The utility of making public opinion… public ought to be obvious. Or would you prefer our leaders to press on regardless, making policy on the basis of their gut feeling about what we all think ?
As to your question - no.
There's obviously no logical link which suggests such a question though.
Were the dark ages dark?... I mean who cares.
There may be many good questions to ask regarding our relationship with Europe, but I think the right one to ask is 'Should we get closer to Europe?'
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
It's a pointless question though. A better question is should the UK apply to rejoin the EU.
We rejoin. We experience similar challenges on uneven and weak growth, high EU migration and some new ones on political union. And new EU regulations coming in we don't like. Everyone is frustrated. 5 years later there's a poll:
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to re-join the European Union?
Right to Rejoin: 34% (-12) Wrong to Rejoin: 54% (+10)
The existing Brexit settlement clearly isn't politically sustainable as-is but neither is it as simple as going back to square one and pretending that it'd fix everything and the issues that led us to leave were never really there.
Quite. The statecraft failure was well before 2016. It was when the EU became both difficult -near impossible - to leave and, with the UK government support, had tied itself into positions (Euro, ECB, powerless parliament, FoM) the UK popular vote could never truly own or love while promising but never delivering referendums over the changes.
The balance was so fine that a tiny derogation/brake from FoM for good reasons would have achieved a 'Remain' win. The failure to do so meant to popular opinion that the EU was hopelessly committed to fundamentalist positions despite the stark nature of the facts. Which revealed its true nature.
That's why Brexit won, and it was right that it did.
The EU was difficult to leave for us because of the Irish border. Absent that awkward piece of geometry leaving would have been quite easy, if still a bad idea. And we had a permanent opt out from the Euro, so I'm not sure that was a factor. Brexit won because it promised different outcomes to different people, and it's unpopular now because people have figured that out.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
And who thought the Restoration would happen in 1655?
Rejoining would be more like going back on 1688-90; restoring King James II, repealing the Toleration Act, going back to arbitrary rule and reversing the supremacy of Parliament.
If Tories and SLDs tactically vote SLAB now Starmer has replaced Corbyn, SLAB would gain far more SNP seats than that if they are now under 45% Scotland wide
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
We should instead say "what can we do to be #1? how can we be better than the US?"
Perhaps I seem unpatriotic because I often talk Britain down (particularly the economy). However whatever constraints there sometimes are, I really think we should aim to be the best.
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
No. I mean, yes, but the position you are stating is completely hostile to full-on transbore thought. Excluding transpersons deom ANY space or ANY activity, makes you a TERF. Your compromises are heresy.
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
No. I mean, yes, but the position you are stating is completely hostile to full-on transbore thought. Excluding transpersons deom ANY space or ANY activity, makes you a TERF. Your compromises are heresy.
He (Herbert) vents his fury at Stonewall earlier in the article.
Or should that be, in tribute: He, Herbert, vents his fury at Stonewall....
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
Yes. I was also struck by the last paragraph: No-one will win from a culture war on these issues, and those most harmed will be trans people who already feel stigmatised, people who are different yet just like us, human beings who deserve greater kindness than today’s politics will permit. It's not often I find myself agreeing with a leading Tory, but it's a well-reasoned essay and seeks to detoxify the issue as well as making it non-partisan. Something perhaps we could all do.
Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?
It is not obvious.
Hilary? Michelle?
Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
Heard an interview with Michelle the other day - ostensibly about her new book but also just possibly testing the water. The presidency didn't come up but if it had, who knows what she'd have said? She certainly sounded credible. I'm on at a HUGE price from a year ago. Much shorter now.
Don’t misunderstand me. I like her and I rate her. I just don’t think she’s interested
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
And who thought the Restoration would happen in 1655?
Rejoining would be more like going back on 1688-90; restoring King James II, repealing the Toleration Act, going back to arbitrary rule and reversing the supremacy of Parliament.
Although not the supremacy of the Scottish people. Obvs.
The name of the band Deacon Blue in turn comes from a brilliant song by Steely Dan. Whose name In turn comes from a strap on metal dildo described by William S Burroughs in “Naked Lunch”
Well a deacon wearing one of those would be rather blue.
As for the song, the world that formed Thatcher certainly had space for humble dignified work, saving your money and pottering round in a small boat in retirement.
The forces Thatcher unleashed and rode didn't... And I wonder how much she understood what she did. Bits of her memoirs imply that she thought that accumulation of wealth would unleash civic philanthropy and it never happened on the scale it needed to.
Maybe Thatcherism needed everyone to have a provincial methodist upbringing to work. Which it didn't. Which is a pity.
The best quote on this subject that I read was something along the lines that Thatcher wanted a world where people like her father would prosper, but created one where people like her son did.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
And who thought the Restoration would happen in 1655?
Rejoining would be more like going back on 1688-90; restoring King James II, repealing the Toleration Act, going back to arbitrary rule and reversing the supremacy of Parliament.
If Tories and SLDs tactically vote SLAB now Starmer has replaced Corbyn, SLAB would gain far more SNP seats than that if they are now under 45% Scotland wide
*If* Johnson wasn’t an Oaf he wouldn’t have been kicked out of office.
*If* Brexit wasn’t a massive fraud it would be popular.
*If* you weren’t a proto-fascist you might be fit for polite company.
*If* the Union was popular BritNats wouldn’t need to pretend.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
And who thought the Restoration would happen in 1655?
Rejoining would be more like going back on 1688-90; restoring King James II, repealing the Toleration Act, going back to arbitrary rule and reversing the supremacy of Parliament.
Although not the supremacy of the Scottish people. Obvs.
1) At the time the Scots were free to make their own settlement.
2) The Scottish people declined the offer recently, and within a few decades will be able to consider the offer again.
Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?
It is not obvious.
Hilary? Michelle?
Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
Heard an interview with Michelle the other day - ostensibly about her new book but also just possibly testing the water. The presidency didn't come up but if it had, who knows what she'd have said? She certainly sounded credible. I'm on at a HUGE price from a year ago. Much shorter now.
Don’t misunderstand me. I like her and I rate her. I just don’t think she’s interested
She is wonderful. And she strings together streams of cliches better than most - indeed at book length. And she is far too nice to be President of USA.
On Topic - perhaps already noted, but in case not:
Six former POTUS who sought (at least once) a non-consecutive, subsequent term in office:
1. Martin Van Buren - elected as Democrat in 1836, defeated 1840; ran & lost in 1848 as Free Soil nominee.
2. Millard Fillmore - elected VP in 1848 as Whig, succeed as President 1850-53; ran & lost in 1856 as American (Know Nothing) nominee.
3. Ulysses S. Grant - elected as Republican 1868, re-elected 1872; ran for Republican nomination in 1880 but lost nomination.
4. GROVER CLEVELAND - elected as Democrat in 1884, defeated for re-election in 1888; renominated AND re-elected as Democrat in 1892.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - elected VP in 1900 as Republican, succeeded as President in 1901, nominated and elected as Republican in 1904; ran unsuccessfully for Republican nomination in 1912, then bolted GOP, ran & lost as Progressive (Bull Moose) nominee.
6. Herbert Hoover - elected as Republican in 1928, renominated but lost in 1932; sought Republican nomination unsuccessfully in 1936 and 1940.
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
And who thought the Restoration would happen in 1655?
Rejoining would be more like going back on 1688-90; restoring King James II, repealing the Toleration Act, going back to arbitrary rule and reversing the supremacy of Parliament.
Although not the supremacy of the Scottish people. Obvs.
1) At the time the Scots were free to make their own settlement.
2) The Scottish people declined the offer recently, and within a few decades will be able to consider the offer again.
The Scottish people were supreme yesterday, are supreme today and will be supreme tomorrow.
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
On Topic - perhaps already noted, but in case not:
Six former POTUS who sought (at least once) a non-consecutive, subsequent term in office:
1. Martin Van Buren - elected as Democrat in 1836, defeated 1840; ran & lost in 1878 as Free Soil nominee.
2. Millard Fillmore - elected VP in 1848 as Whig, succeed as President 1850-53; ran & lost in 1856 as American (Know Nothing) nominee.
3. Ulysses S. Grant - elected as Republican 1868, re-elected 1872; ran for Republican nomination in 1880 but lost nomination.
4. GROVER CLEVELAND - elected as Democrat in 1884, defeated for re-election in 1888; renominated AND re-elected as Democrat in 1892.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - elected VP in 1900 as Republican, succeeded as President in 1901, nominated and elected as Republican in 1904; ran unsuccessfully for Republican nomination in 1912, then bolted GOP, ran & lost as Progressive (Bull Moose) nominee.
6. Herbert Hoover - elected as Republican in 1928, renominated but lost in 1932; sought Republican nomination unsuccessfully in 1936 and 1940.
I had been really excited by the reference to 1878 for Van Buren, thinking what could have prompted him to run after such a long gap. Sadly, just a typo.
On Topic - perhaps already noted, but in case not:
Six former POTUS who sought (at least once) a non-consecutive, subsequent term in office:
1. Martin Van Buren - elected as Democrat in 1836, defeated 1840; ran & lost in 1878 as Free Soil nominee.
2. Millard Fillmore - elected VP in 1848 as Whig, succeed as President 1850-53; ran & lost in 1856 as American (Know Nothing) nominee.
3. Ulysses S. Grant - elected as Republican 1868, re-elected 1872; ran for Republican nomination in 1880 but lost nomination.
4. GROVER CLEVELAND - elected as Democrat in 1884, defeated for re-election in 1888; renominated AND re-elected as Democrat in 1892.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - elected VP in 1900 as Republican, succeeded as President in 1901, nominated and elected as Republican in 1904; ran unsuccessfully for Republican nomination in 1912, then bolted GOP, ran & lost as Progressive (Bull Moose) nominee.
6. Herbert Hoover - elected as Republican in 1928, renominated but lost in 1932; sought Republican nomination unsuccessfully in 1936 and 1940.
I had been really excited by the reference to 1878 for Van Buren, thinking what could have prompted him to run after such a long gap. Sadly, just a typo.
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
That is incorrect. You and I are Conservative voters and you still support the party while I left because it tacked strongly right and is full of arseholes now.
Neither of us (sample size n=2) no longer support the party because they haven't stopped illegal immigration.
NEW: Lorna Slater facing 'serious questions' over whether she misled Holyrood
"The Scot Gov has not denied a Green minister misled parliament around when ministers first became aware they were using a dodgy offshore wind power statistic."
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
As usual, Matt Goodwin is very keen to report polling that supports his tired views. Other polling, he's less keen on.
Let them keep believing that. After all the arse end of Boris then the brief Liz Truss premiership which both tanked their polling were notable first and foremost for…small boat migration?
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
That is incorrect. You and I are Conservative voters and you still support the party while I left because it tacked strongly right and is full of arseholes now.
Neither of us (sample size n=2) no longer support the party because they haven't stopped illegal immigration.
No link from tweet to actual poll, a sure sign of scumbaggery. I am as certain as I can be that it is not true.
My second ever 'Mornington Crescent' and I'm very happy with the victory. It takes a lot of work, and a big team behind me to sweep in with the deciscive blow.
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
No but we should start world war 3 because it would be good for climate change, it would reduce the human overpopulation and nuclear winter would certainly cure the warming what is not to like?
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
There was one of those cheap reality shows I saw a while back which followed a fraud team at London Underground. The data they have is scary
My favourite bit of this article is the reference to the phantom time hypothesis, which I had not come across before: the theory that the years from 614 to 911 AD simply didn't exist and were made up by the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope so they could occupy their respective positions in the year 1000. By which token the true year is actually 1725: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
Wikipedia drily notes that this theory has 'failed to gain the support of historians'.
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
I think this question is a proxy for 'given the choice, would you go back to mid-2015?' And who wouldn't? No war, no covid, no lockdown, no - it must be said - years of infuriating arguments about Brexit, which no one on either side of the argument have enjoyed.
Only a maniac would say that the last 6 years have been nationally brilliant (cricket world cups aside, or course).
But the idea that had we voted the other way everything would be sunniness and light is a fantasy. Things have been a tad challenging everywhere. To imagine Brexit as a companion horseman of plague and war is madness (though there are a large handful who are genuinely that mad).
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
What do we already have to carry? I don't normally carry an ID card in this country, unless I'm going to an airport or ferry port.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
There was one of those cheap reality shows I saw a while back which followed a fraud team at London Underground. The data they have is scary
I saw that. It was surprisingly brilliant.
EDIT: But yes, I agree with @JosiasJessop . I used to be all in favour of road pricing: I can see very good transport planning arguments in favour of raising revenue that way rather than road tax and fuel tax. But covid changed my mind. I no longer trust government with that sort of data.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
What do we already have to carry? I don't normally carry an ID card in this country, unless I'm going to an airport or ferry port.
I carry nothing generally, not even a phone and I dont join social media like faeces book or twitter. I get by just fine
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
Today was one of the most embarrassing days for the daily newspapers for a long time. Many of them had big headlines saying something like "Russian missiles hit Poland".
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
Don't have time to go into why now but I've just laid Starmer as next PM at 1.5 for a modest stake.
Explain more tomorrow.
Labour will lead polls right up till they launch a manifesto, just like may in 2017. When starmer says this is what we will do I expect support to plummet
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
That is incorrect. You and I are Conservative voters and you still support the party while I left because it tacked strongly right and is full of arseholes now.
Neither of us (sample size n=2) no longer support the party because they haven't stopped illegal immigration.
Though RefUK is up to about 5 to 7% from about 2% in 2019
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
What do we already have to carry? I don't normally carry an ID card in this country, unless I'm going to an airport or ferry port.
I carry nothing generally, not even a phone and I dont join social media like faeces book or twitter. I get by just fine
You can't win, they still CCTV the fuck out of you as soon as you leave the house. And you are bound to be on a very short list of highly dodgy characters who don't carry phones.
Number 1 reason 2019 Conservative voters are no longer supporting the party is they have not stopped illegal immigration and Channel crossings according to a Public First poll
As usual, Matt Goodwin is very keen to report polling that supports his tired views. Other polling, he's less keen on.
Public Polling belongs to him. It is BPC, but it is spooky how often it finds what he wants it to find.
To be fair, this one isn't Goodwin's outfit. It's Public First - another Tory outfit under James Frayne and Rachel Wolf (who had a big hand in the Tories' 2019 manifesto).
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
Not always. You can get some nasty resonances.
Outdoors is usually better
Many moons ago, I had a colleague who was a massive muso. He went to buy a new house, and the estate agent was bemused at the fact my colleague danced around the lounge clapping his hands hard. The agent was even more amused when the colleague asked him to clap his hands.
He was testing the acoustics of the room (he had near ceiling-high speakers in the corners of the room). And presumably no neighbours...
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
Not always. You can get some nasty resonances.
Outdoors is usually better
Many moons ago, I had a colleague who was a massive muso. He went to buy a new house, and the estate agent was bemused at the fact my colleague danced around the lounge clapping his hands hard. The agent was even more amused when the colleague asked him to clap his hands.
He was testing the acoustics of the room (he had near ceiling-high speakers in the corners of the room). And presumably no neighbours...
Like Sheldon at the movie theatre...
A friend asked me to accompany him to buy a new sound system. The guy in the shop was raving about how great it sounded. I was not impressed. The sales guy wandered off and we swapped the out of phase speaker cables and tried again. He then bought it.
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
Yes, that about covers it. Whereas we have had no discussion at all on Brexit/rejoin etc for the last 6 or 7 years. Time we started.
Covers it?! But should a Catholic priest who has decided to think of himself as female, or as neither male nor female, be allowed to say mass?
The way that catholic (Roman) thinking goes the answer will be along the lines of:
1) If they were born male and objectively that was the case then they remain male objectively; so in principle can celebrate mass etc.
2) However the belief they are not male, while wrong, would render their priestly actions valid (objectively) but irregular - the person lacking the correct belief about their status, which gender status is essential (of the essence) of the priestly actions
3) As their actions would be irregular they should be suspended from all priestly and ministerial actions and roles.
The CoE however would refer the matter to various bodies including General Synod and would come up with a decision, from which everyone is allowed to dissent by choosing their own bishop, in 50 years time.
Don't have time to go into why now but I've just laid Starmer as next PM at 1.5 for a modest stake.
Explain more tomorrow.
The tension's unbearable. Have you found the dirt on Starmer that the Tories have been desperately looking for? If so, is it stronger stuff than a donkey sanctuary, Jimmy Savile, being a Remoaner, or being in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet?
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
I think this question is a proxy for 'given the choice, would you go back to mid-2015?' And who wouldn't? No war, no covid, no lockdown, no - it must be said - years of infuriating arguments about Brexit, which no one on either side of the argument have enjoyed.
Only a maniac would say that the last 6 years have been nationally brilliant (cricket world cups aside, or course).
But the idea that had we voted the other way everything would be sunniness and light is a fantasy. Things have been a tad challenging everywhere. To imagine Brexit as a companion horseman of plague and war is madness (though there are a large handful who are genuinely that mad).
Imagine Covid and Ukraine positions with the UK in the "ever closer union" of a Remain victory.
I suspect there would be a massive amount of buyer's remorse. Farage would be flying very high. Which is a horrible thought.
Don't have time to go into why now but I've just laid Starmer as next PM at 1.5 for a modest stake.
Explain more tomorrow.
Labour will lead polls right up till they launch a manifesto, just like may in 2017. When starmer says this is what we will do I expect support to plummet
If Labour have any sense, their 2024 manifesto will be as vague as possible. (Parties having fun playing at politics come up with long policy lists. Parties wanting / expecting to win go for small achievable wins. Think Blair's 1997 pledge card. Or the stuff that wasn't in the Thatcher '79 manifesto.)
If Labour have more sense, they are also rehearsing the "now we've seen the full books, we have discovered that the Tory legacy is even worse than we feared" thing.
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
Not always. You can get some nasty resonances.
Outdoors is usually better
Many moons ago, I had a colleague who was a massive muso. He went to buy a new house, and the estate agent was bemused at the fact my colleague danced around the lounge clapping his hands hard. The agent was even more amused when the colleague asked him to clap his hands.
He was testing the acoustics of the room (he had near ceiling-high speakers in the corners of the room). And presumably no neighbours...
Like Sheldon at the movie theatre...
A friend asked me to accompany him to buy a new sound system. The guy in the shop was raving about how great it sounded. I was not impressed. The sales guy wandered off and we swapped the out of phase speaker cables and tried again. He then bought it.
Sheldon? As in Big Bang Theory? Never watched it.
The same colleague saw Titanic on the first night it was released. He said he watched it and thought: "That scene's an Oscar. That's scene's an Oscar. That scene's an Oscar..."
I am terrible with music; I honestly thought I was tone deaf, but a test showed that I'm not. I'm just terrible with music.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
What do we already have to carry? I don't normally carry an ID card in this country, unless I'm going to an airport or ferry port.
I carry nothing generally, not even a phone and I dont join social media like faeces book or twitter. I get by just fine
You can't win, they still CCTV the fuck out of you as soon as you leave the house. And you are bound to be on a very short list of highly dodgy characters who don't carry phones.
Not carrying a phone, and never having one at all that can be traced to you is essential to all manner of criminal activity.
Don't have time to go into why now but I've just laid Starmer as next PM at 1.5 for a modest stake.
Explain more tomorrow.
Labour will lead polls right up till they launch a manifesto, just like may in 2017. When starmer says this is what we will do I expect support to plummet
If Labour have any sense, their 2024 manifesto will be as vague as possible. (Parties having fun playing at politics come up with long policy lists. Parties wanting / expecting to win go for small achievable wins. Think Blair's 1997 pledge card. Or the stuff that wasn't in the Thatcher '79 manifesto.)
If Labour have more sense, they are also rehearsing the "now we've seen the full books, we have discovered that the Tory legacy is even worse than we feared" thing.
Promise a thorough and common sense based review of all matters apart from NATO membership and small retail bits of free money to your voters about which you can be clear and precise.
re the trans debate (and I say this with some caution), may I re-refer the PB community to an eminently sensible essay from Nick Herbert on the subject which contains this paragraph:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
Yes, that about covers it. Whereas we have had no discussion at all on Brexit/rejoin etc for the last 6 or 7 years. Time we started.
Covers it?! But should a Catholic priest who has decided to think of himself as female, or as neither male nor female, be allowed to say mass?
The way that catholic (Roman) thinking goes the answer will be along the lines of:
1) If they were born male and objectively that was the case then they remain male objectively; so in principle can celebrate mass etc.
2) However the belief they are not male, while wrong, would render their priestly actions valid (objectively) but irregular - the person lacking the correct belief about their status, which gender status is essential (of the essence) of the priestly actions
3) As their actions would be irregular they should be suspended from all priestly and ministerial actions and roles.
The CoE however would refer the matter to various bodies including General Synod and would come up with a decision, from which everyone is allowed to dissent by choosing their own bishop, in 50 years time.
The Church of England has already ordained a transgender vicar, though they now minister in the Church in Wales
I had three small packages for her. Two went through the letterbox but the third - a half length poster tube, pretty suspicious size and shape - wouldn't fit
She wasn't in and her garden gate was locked. Looking for somewhere safe to leave it, I noticed a pair of wellies by the door, with one boot pushed into the other. I pulled them apart, put the tube between and put them back together
I then wrote my 739 (the red card we leave when nobody's in); I ticked "in your safe place" and wrote:
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
Not always. You can get some nasty resonances.
Outdoors is usually better
Many moons ago, I had a colleague who was a massive muso. He went to buy a new house, and the estate agent was bemused at the fact my colleague danced around the lounge clapping his hands hard. The agent was even more amused when the colleague asked him to clap his hands.
He was testing the acoustics of the room (he had near ceiling-high speakers in the corners of the room). And presumably no neighbours...
Like Sheldon at the movie theatre...
A friend asked me to accompany him to buy a new sound system. The guy in the shop was raving about how great it sounded. I was not impressed. The sales guy wandered off and we swapped the out of phase speaker cables and tried again. He then bought it.
Sheldon? As in Big Bang Theory? Never watched it.
The same colleague saw Titanic on the first night it was released. He said he watched it and thought: "That scene's an Oscar. That's scene's an Oscar. That scene's an Oscar..."
I am terrible with music; I honestly thought I was tone deaf, but a test showed that I'm not. I'm just terrible with music.
Such harmony is in immortal souls, But, whilst this muddy gesture of decay Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.
I am terrible with music; I honestly thought I was tone deaf, but a test showed that I'm not. I'm just terrible with music.
That sounds like a curse...
Not really. I love listening to music, I just can't play instruments, or even 'get' some things other people say they do from music. It's odd, and I only realised when I was with a friend who is a brilliant pianist. She, likewise, cannot read sheet music whilst playing; she has to study the music beforehand and memorise it. Which in itself is quite a feat.
It may be why my singing is so infamously bad it was mentioned in a book...
The interesting thing about that is the Qataris not appearing to think that this would look bad in any way. Surely, these guys must think, all states operate like this?
It's odd, and I only realised when I was with a friend who is a brilliant pianist. She, likewise, cannot read sheet music whilst playing; she has to study the music beforehand and memorise it. Which in itself is quite a feat.
That is fascinating. I can't imagine learning to play without sight reading.
I wonder if it is in any way related to the phenomenon Richard Feynman noticed.
Some people can count and read at the same time, but not speak. Some people can count and speak, but not read.
He reckoned some people when they count hear the numbers, some people see them, so whichever method they are doing they can do the other, but they can't do the same thing twice at the same time.
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
London Lab 55% Con 17% LD 11% Grn 8% Ref 7%
Rest of South Lab 40% Con 33% LD 15% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 51% Con 25% Ref 7% LD 7% Grn 4% PC 3%
North Lab 61% Con 20% Ref 5% LD 5% Grn 4%
Scotland SNP 44% Lab 27% Con 16% LD 6% Grn 3% Ref 2%
(YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1708; Fieldwork: 9th - 10th November 2022)
Horrible for the Tories. Rishi not cutting through.
Still doing better than Truss, even if still clearly behind where Boris was when Tory MPs forced him out in July
Obviously, since it takes about a fortnight for events to have an impact on public opinion. Johnson was a loser for the Tories - well, he is a loser - so they did the right thing for the party and the country in dumping him.
The interesting thing about that is the Qataris not appearing to think that this would look bad in any way. Surely, these guys must think, all states operate like this?
Tbh. I think it’s FIFA we should be focusing on, rather than Qatar.
The interesting thing about that is the Qataris not appearing to think that this would look bad in any way. Surely, these guys must think, all states operate like this?
Seems to be a natural official urge that has to be actively resisted. To hear some of our PCCs and police tell it journalists here should not film things they have a legal right to.
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
London Lab 55% Con 17% LD 11% Grn 8% Ref 7%
Rest of South Lab 40% Con 33% LD 15% Grn 5% Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales Lab 51% Con 25% Ref 7% LD 7% Grn 4% PC 3%
North Lab 61% Con 20% Ref 5% LD 5% Grn 4%
Scotland SNP 44% Lab 27% Con 16% LD 6% Grn 3% Ref 2%
(YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1708; Fieldwork: 9th - 10th November 2022)
Horrible for the Tories. Rishi not cutting through.
Still doing better than Truss, even if still clearly behind where Boris was when Tory MPs forced him out in July
Obviously, since it takes about a fortnight for events to have an impact on public opinion. Johnson was a loser for the Tories - well, he is a loser - so they did the right thing for the party and the country in dumping him.
For the country maybe for the party probably not given current polls for the Tories still worse than when Boris left
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
There was one of those cheap reality shows I saw a while back which followed a fraud team at London Underground. The data they have is scary
I saw that. It was surprisingly brilliant.
EDIT: But yes, I agree with @JosiasJessop . I used to be all in favour of road pricing: I can see very good transport planning arguments in favour of raising revenue that way rather than road tax and fuel tax. But covid changed my mind. I no longer trust government with that sort of data.
The interesting thing about that is the Qataris not appearing to think that this would look bad in any way. Surely, these guys must think, all states operate like this?
Tbh. I think it’s FIFA we should be focusing on, rather than Qatar.
I was surprised by what Blatter said recently. That the reason it went to Qatar was down to the UEFA votes when he thought the USA was the best option.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
There was one of those cheap reality shows I saw a while back which followed a fraud team at London Underground. The data they have is scary
I saw that. It was surprisingly brilliant.
EDIT: But yes, I agree with @JosiasJessop . I used to be all in favour of road pricing: I can see very good transport planning arguments in favour of raising revenue that way rather than road tax and fuel tax. But covid changed my mind. I no longer trust government with that sort of data.
How did the government abuse your Covid data?
The police were arresting people for being more than five miles from their home. You want to make their job easier?
Comments
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2022/4/9/royal-commission
I mean that's about it, isn't it? Shall we move on to Brexit/rejoin?
The balance was so fine that a tiny derogation/brake from FoM for good reasons would have achieved a 'Remain' win. The failure to do so meant to popular opinion that the EU was hopelessly committed to fundamentalist positions despite the stark nature of the facts. Which revealed its true nature.
That's why Brexit won, and it was right that it did.
But one other thing... Does the chain go unpopular Conservatives dragging Brexit down or unpopular Brexit dragging Conservatives down? Or a bit of both?
Next, Elon Musk sets up a Mars base where astronauts can all have a J Arthur.
Ned Ludd, now there was a Yorkshireman who had a point.
There's obviously no logical link which suggests such a question though.
Were the dark ages dark?... I mean who cares.
There may be many good questions to ask regarding our relationship with Europe, but I think the right one to ask is 'Should we get closer to Europe?'
Brexit won because it promised different outcomes to different people, and it's unpopular now because people have figured that out.
Or should that be, in tribute: He, Herbert, vents his fury at Stonewall....
No-one will win from a culture war on these issues, and those most harmed will be trans people who already feel stigmatised, people who are different yet just like us, human beings who deserve greater kindness than today’s politics will permit.
It's not often I find myself agreeing with a leading Tory, but it's a well-reasoned essay and seeks to detoxify the issue as well as making it non-partisan. Something perhaps we could all do.
*If* Brexit wasn’t a massive fraud it would be popular.
*If* you weren’t a proto-fascist you might be fit for polite company.
*If* the Union was popular BritNats wouldn’t need to pretend.
2) The Scottish people declined the offer recently, and within a few decades will be able to consider the offer again.
Six former POTUS who sought (at least once) a non-consecutive, subsequent term in office:
1. Martin Van Buren - elected as Democrat in 1836, defeated 1840; ran & lost in 1848 as Free Soil nominee.
2. Millard Fillmore - elected VP in 1848 as Whig, succeed as President 1850-53; ran & lost in 1856 as American (Know Nothing) nominee.
3. Ulysses S. Grant - elected as Republican 1868, re-elected 1872; ran for Republican nomination in 1880 but lost nomination.
4. GROVER CLEVELAND - elected as Democrat in 1884, defeated for re-election in 1888; renominated AND re-elected as Democrat in 1892.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - elected VP in 1900 as Republican, succeeded as President in 1901, nominated and elected as Republican in 1904; ran unsuccessfully for Republican nomination in 1912, then bolted GOP, ran & lost as Progressive (Bull Moose) nominee.
6. Herbert Hoover - elected as Republican in 1928, renominated but lost in 1932; sought Republican nomination unsuccessfully in 1936 and 1940.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1592876451329904642?s=20&t=10w7eBOHlg4z02JcSHfnVg
Neither of us (sample size n=2) no longer support the party because they haven't stopped illegal immigration.
NEW: Lorna Slater facing 'serious questions' over whether she misled Holyrood
"The Scot Gov has not denied a Green minister misled parliament around when ministers first became aware they were using a dodgy offshore wind power statistic."
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1592944670409052161
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/ancient-apocalypse-netflix-why-graham-hancock-thinks-everything/
My favourite bit of this article is the reference to the phantom time hypothesis, which I had not come across before: the theory that the years from 614 to 911 AD simply didn't exist and were made up by the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope so they could occupy their respective positions in the year 1000. By which token the true year is actually 1725:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
Wikipedia drily notes that this theory has 'failed to gain the support of historians'.
And who wouldn't? No war, no covid, no lockdown, no - it must be said - years of infuriating arguments about Brexit, which no one on either side of the argument have enjoyed.
Only a maniac would say that the last 6 years have been nationally brilliant (cricket world cups aside, or course).
But the idea that had we voted the other way everything would be sunniness and light is a fantasy. Things have been a tad challenging everywhere. To imagine Brexit as a companion horseman of plague and war is madness (though there are a large handful who are genuinely that mad).
EDIT:
But yes, I agree with @JosiasJessop . I used to be all in favour of road pricing: I can see very good transport planning arguments in favour of raising revenue that way rather than road tax and fuel tax. But covid changed my mind. I no longer trust government with that sort of data.
Explain more tomorrow.
Will the Conservatives come in behind the Lib Dems in the Chester byelection?
Outdoors is usually better
He was testing the acoustics of the room (he had near ceiling-high speakers in the corners of the room). And presumably no neighbours...
. Good bet - because for many voters immigration will be the main issue, while Starmer has hardly any charisma. Good lad, and +10^6 for calling it Faeces Book. I don't carry a phone either.
A friend asked me to accompany him to buy a new sound system. The guy in the shop was raving about how great it sounded. I was not impressed. The sales guy wandered off and we swapped the out of phase speaker cables and tried again.
He then bought it.
1) If they were born male and objectively that was the case then they remain male objectively; so in principle can celebrate mass etc.
2) However the belief they are not male, while wrong, would render their priestly actions valid (objectively) but irregular - the person lacking the correct belief about their status, which gender status is essential (of the essence) of the priestly actions
3) As their actions would be irregular they should be suspended from all priestly and ministerial actions and roles.
The CoE however would refer the matter to various bodies including General Synod and would come up with a decision, from which everyone is allowed to dissent by choosing their own bishop, in 50 years time.
I suspect there would be a massive amount of buyer's remorse. Farage would be flying very high. Which is a horrible thought.
If Labour have more sense, they are also rehearsing the "now we've seen the full books, we have discovered that the Tory legacy is even worse than we feared" thing.
The same colleague saw Titanic on the first night it was released. He said he watched it and thought: "That scene's an Oscar. That's scene's an Oscar. That scene's an Oscar..."
I am terrible with music; I honestly thought I was tone deaf, but a test showed that I'm not. I'm just terrible with music.
He sits in different seats squawking until he finds the acoustic sweet spot.
Sometimes he uses a xylophone.
https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/cardiff-priest-honoured-lgbt-award/
I had three small packages for her. Two went through the letterbox but the third - a half length poster tube, pretty suspicious size and shape - wouldn't fit
She wasn't in and her garden gate was locked. Looking for somewhere safe to leave it, I noticed a pair of wellies by the door, with one boot pushed into the other. I pulled them apart, put the tube between and put them back together
I then wrote my 739 (the red card we leave when nobody's in); I ticked "in your safe place" and wrote:
"Between your rubber
wylliesboots"I hope she appreciated the effort!
But, whilst this muddy gesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-63655870
Classics, every one.
I only have 14 of the 49 so far...
It may be why my singing is so infamously bad it was mentioned in a book...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/opinion/donald-trump-republicans-underperformance.html
I wonder if it is in any way related to the phenomenon Richard Feynman noticed.
Some people can count and read at the same time, but not speak. Some people can count and speak, but not read.
He reckoned some people when they count hear the numbers, some people see them, so whichever method they are doing they can do the other, but they can't do the same thing twice at the same time.
Biden 36%
Trump 33%
DeSantis 35%
Biden 33%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/