I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
You are spot on! My news consumption is a fraction of what it was when I was younger. I am much happier for it.
Today is one of my infrequent destinations when the fancy takes me. “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy”. 😉
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
I am pretty convinced those saying Trump won't get the nomination just don't have enough exposure to the Republican primary electorate.
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
The Kempton Clerk thought it would ride nearer Good to Soft - that will mean they'll go faster in the King George and on that tight track everyone's jumping will be tested. I'm not convinced ENVOI ALLEN won't make one too many errors.
This Christmas, heretics, rebels and free thinkers have every reason to feel jolly. Because 2022 has been the year that the British public said ‘no’ to the worst excesses of US-imported grievance culture – most notably to transgenderism. And those leading the charge through the courts, institutions and streets have been middle-aged women who refuse to take any shit.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, Monarchy = Toryism.
State control of most of the economy =Socialism
Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.
So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.
It would be more accurate the other way around.
They hate both, at least in their own country.
The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.
But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.
Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?
It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
Let's not lionise Lee. The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.
And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.
Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms. The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.
As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
He was on the winning side.
Which is not quite the same thing.
As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.
An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.
I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
Washington was a good politician but a pretty average general.
His main skill was in beating retreat and keeping his force in being.
His strategy of keeping the Continental Army intact by tactical withdrawal and retaking undefended areas, recruitment of foreign allies and support was an astute one. After Saratoga the British couldn't win, but the war was not won until Yorktown.
To bring it up to date, Ukraine has won their Saratoga, but not yet their Yorktown.
The best thing that the US rebels did was to get France, and most of Europe, fighting on their side.
Had we never lost the American colonies of course we would never even have joined the EEC, let alone had Brexit
Crap even by your standards. They would simply have become independent later.
If the North American states were at least all British dominions in WW1 and WW2 there would have been not the same pressure to give up India etc after World War 2 either and no Suez crisis
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
Not in the same way as now, sure, that's definitely a more modern devleopment, but HYUFD is more right than usual about certain places having an approximate of it even then.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
In one sense, it would be good to see Trump have another go. Because it's becoming obvious the likely outcome is an absolute hammering that would destroy his myth once and for all.
But the risks involved are high. Too high, I would say.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
Yes, I did say the parallels weren't exact. The question remains - could the GOP primaries be as closely fought between De Santis and Trump as they were between Reagan and Ford?
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
In one sense, it would be good to see Trump have another go. Because it's becoming obvious the likely outcome is an absolute hammering that would destroy his myth once and for all.
But the risks involved are high. Too high, I would say.
I think Democrats and Non-Trump Republicans (including some who must present as being Trump fans for sake of their careers) are desperately hoping external events will save them the both the trouble of having to face him down themselves, legal troubles and the like, but they cannot trust that will solve the issue for them, even if news is incoming in the new year.
Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, Monarchy = Toryism.
State control of most of the economy =Socialism
Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.
So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.
It would be more accurate the other way around.
They hate both, at least in their own country.
The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.
But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.
Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?
It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
Let's not lionise Lee. The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.
And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.
Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms. The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.
As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
He was on the winning side.
Which is not quite the same thing.
As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.
An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.
I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
Washington was a good politician but a pretty average general.
His main skill was in beating retreat and keeping his force in being.
His strategy of keeping the Continental Army intact by tactical withdrawal and retaking undefended areas, recruitment of foreign allies and support was an astute one. After Saratoga the British couldn't win, but the war was not won until Yorktown.
To bring it up to date, Ukraine has won their Saratoga, but not yet their Yorktown.
The best thing that the US rebels did was to get France, and most of Europe, fighting on their side.
Had we never lost the American colonies of course we would never even have joined the EEC, let alone had Brexit
Crap even by your standards. They would simply have become independent later.
If the North American states were at least all British dominions in WW1 and WW2 there would have been not the same pressure to give up India etc after World War 2 either and no Suez crisis
So Tory PM’s have been making a real hash of things right from the earliest days of the party?
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, Monarchy = Toryism.
State control of most of the economy =Socialism
Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.
So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.
It would be more accurate the other way around.
They hate both, at least in their own country.
The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.
But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.
Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?
It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
Let's not lionise Lee. The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.
And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.
Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms. The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.
As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
He was on the winning side.
Which is not quite the same thing.
As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.
An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.
I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
Washington was a good politician but a pretty average general.
His main skill was in beating retreat and keeping his force in being.
His strategy of keeping the Continental Army intact by tactical withdrawal and retaking undefended areas, recruitment of foreign allies and support was an astute one. After Saratoga the British couldn't win, but the war was not won until Yorktown.
To bring it up to date, Ukraine has won their Saratoga, but not yet their Yorktown.
The best thing that the US rebels did was to get France, and most of Europe, fighting on their side.
Had we never lost the American colonies of course we would never even have joined the EEC, let alone had Brexit
Crap even by your standards. They would simply have become independent later.
If the North American states were at least all British dominions in WW1 and WW2 there would have been not the same pressure to give up India etc after World War 2 either and no Suez crisis
So Tory PM’s have been making a real hash of things right from the earliest days of the party?
No it was the Tories under Lord North who fought to keep the American colonies and did so until the French and Spanish ganged up against them.
It was also Attlee's Labour who gave up India, not the Tories
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
Yes, I did say the parallels weren't exact. The question remains - could the GOP primaries be as closely fought between De Santis and Trump as they were between Reagan and Ford?
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
Yes, I did say the parallels weren't exact. The question remains - could the GOP primaries be as closely fought between De Santis and Trump as they were between Reagan and Ford?
De Santis can't possibly become POTUS. No candidate with a surname beginning D (or S for that matter) has ever won.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
I reckon Trump is good value at 30% for the nomination.
Other candidates will find it very hard to criticize his record, or his election-winning prospects, without incurring the wrath of his large base of support. Just imagine how this will play out in a debate.
How does another candidate say something like, "I love you Donald, you were a great President, those cheating Dems stole your reelection from you..." and find a reason why people shouldn't nominate him again?
And if they stay from that script they become an outcast.
I really don't think the GOP can escape Trump until he's lost again.
I think that's right but I also think too many may be rushing into conclusions about the midterms and its implications.
For a start, it was seen as a disappointment for the GOP mainly because there was a ramp up of expectations (and I fell for that as well). In the summer, the expectation was they would do ok but not fantastically well. That's how it turned out (they had been outsiders to win the Senate) though probably on the lower side of that initial range.
Second, there's been a tendency to say the elections showed that Trump's candidates lost and moderates did well. But that's not entirely the case. John O'Dea in the Colorado Senate race was supposed to be the archetypical moderate GOP candidate who could take the state. He got hammered. Lee Zeldin, OTOH, in NY nearly took the governorship and pulled several House candidates with him. Lake only lost by 17K votes (far closer than Masters).
Trump still should be favourite for the nomination.
In terms of vote share, the Republicans did pretty well. They won 51% to 48% in the House, on a high turnout. Not too long ago, 3% would probably give a party a lead of 50 seats or so, in the House. However, defensive gerrymandering now delivers a lead in single figures.
At Senate and Governor level, they did what they have often done since 2010. Pick God-awful candidates, who alienate a small but significant section of their supporters.
Yes, the 3% lead the GOP had has been somewhat overlooked (not least by those who talk about having the popular vote being the key to a 'legitimate' President). Florida was a key part of this but less commented on was the GOP also cemented its position in Texas even if it didn't pick up several of the border seats. For 2024, the idea FL and TX are swing states is gone.
Re the candidate quality, yes it was a factor in several states and you can see that in the results (GA - Kemp v Walker; PA - Mastriano v Oz). I guess my point is that 'credible' candidates, even if they have Trumpian views, won or put in very decent performances (Zeldin, Burr in NC, Johnson in WI). There is a lot of wishful thinking the electorate is becoming more moderate.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Check out (1) the Lordship of the Isles and (2) Wales.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
Yes couldn't agree more Jonathan, can't stand the Today programme, it's basically "this is what you should be worried/angry about and it's very important". Imho 95% of news can be safely ignored, a lot of it is totally pointless.
Why waste time/energy being annoyed about things you have no control over? Better to sort out your own life the best you can.
I'm much more into music than politics these days, so much more uplifting and enjoyable.
I still prefer politics but I also find the Today program wearisome. The solution to almost every problem is (a) spend more public money; (b) regulate something more closely or (c) both. There is never any attempt to insert some perspective: if we are spending more on X what do we spend less on? There is a reluctance to recognise the complexities that governments inevitably have to deal with and overcome and there is an insufferable habit of talking over the answers as if they are not worth listening to and simply get in the road of the next fabulous point by the presenter.
It's grim and getting worse. The very odd occasion when some expert is on and simply asked to provide clear information in a comprehensible form comes as blessed relief.
I was talking to some friends the other days - a doctor couple. Worked in the NHS all their working lives.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there.
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
The Kempton Clerk thought it would ride nearer Good to Soft - that will mean they'll go faster in the King George and on that tight track everyone's jumping will be tested. I'm not convinced ENVOI ALLEN won't make one too many errors.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
Yes couldn't agree more Jonathan, can't stand the Today programme, it's basically "this is what you should be worried/angry about and it's very important". Imho 95% of news can be safely ignored, a lot of it is totally pointless.
Why waste time/energy being annoyed about things you have no control over? Better to sort out your own life the best you can.
I'm much more into music than politics these days, so much more uplifting and enjoyable.
I still prefer politics but I also find the Today program wearisome. The solution to almost every problem is (a) spend more public money; (b) regulate something more closely or (c) both. There is never any attempt to insert some perspective: if we are spending more on X what do we spend less on? There is a reluctance to recognise the complexities that governments inevitably have to deal with and overcome and there is an insufferable habit of talking over the answers as if they are not worth listening to and simply get in the road of the next fabulous point by the presenter.
It's grim and getting worse. The very odd occasion when some expert is on and simply asked to provide clear information in a comprehensible form comes as blessed relief.
I was talking to some friends the other days - a doctor couple. Worked in the NHS all their working lives.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there.
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
I will be starting my new public sector job on the 4th. I will need a new laptop that meets their security requirements and, I would have thought, a different phone but we shall see. I will report back on my chair etc. Not holding my breath on that front.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
Yes couldn't agree more Jonathan, can't stand the Today programme, it's basically "this is what you should be worried/angry about and it's very important". Imho 95% of news can be safely ignored, a lot of it is totally pointless.
Why waste time/energy being annoyed about things you have no control over? Better to sort out your own life the best you can.
I'm much more into music than politics these days, so much more uplifting and enjoyable.
I still prefer politics but I also find the Today program wearisome. The solution to almost every problem is (a) spend more public money; (b) regulate something more closely or (c) both. There is never any attempt to insert some perspective: if we are spending more on X what do we spend less on? There is a reluctance to recognise the complexities that governments inevitably have to deal with and overcome and there is an insufferable habit of talking over the answers as if they are not worth listening to and simply get in the road of the next fabulous point by the presenter.
It's grim and getting worse. The very odd occasion when some expert is on and simply asked to provide clear information in a comprehensible form comes as blessed relief.
I was talking to some friends the other days - a doctor couple. Worked in the NHS all their working lives.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there. *
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
* Not in the major UK retail bank I worked for.
Cast-off, slow laptop - if you're lucky. UserID: 50/50 chance on day one. Chair? Don't be silly, it's all hot-desking obvs.
(I mean, 'brand new chair' - what a f*cking waste, what happens to the old ones?)
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
Yes couldn't agree more Jonathan, can't stand the Today programme, it's basically "this is what you should be worried/angry about and it's very important". Imho 95% of news can be safely ignored, a lot of it is totally pointless.
Why waste time/energy being annoyed about things you have no control over? Better to sort out your own life the best you can.
I'm much more into music than politics these days, so much more uplifting and enjoyable.
I still prefer politics but I also find the Today program wearisome. The solution to almost every problem is (a) spend more public money; (b) regulate something more closely or (c) both. There is never any attempt to insert some perspective: if we are spending more on X what do we spend less on? There is a reluctance to recognise the complexities that governments inevitably have to deal with and overcome and there is an insufferable habit of talking over the answers as if they are not worth listening to and simply get in the road of the next fabulous point by the presenter.
It's grim and getting worse. The very odd occasion when some expert is on and simply asked to provide clear information in a comprehensible form comes as blessed relief.
I was talking to some friends the other days - a doctor couple. Worked in the NHS all their working lives.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there. *
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
* Not in the major UK retail bank I worked for.
Cast-off, slow laptop - if you're lucky. UserID: 50/50 chance on day one. Chair? Don't be silly, it's all hot-desking obvs.
(I mean, 'brand new chair' - what a f*cking waste, what happens to the old ones?)
I think people assume all the public sector and private sector operate with the same level of efficiency and effectiveness as others in their area, for some reason.
Perhaps the only unifiying element is uncertainty around what the HR departments are up to.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
The Kempton Clerk thought it would ride nearer Good to Soft - that will mean they'll go faster in the King George and on that tight track everyone's jumping will be tested. I'm not convinced ENVOI ALLEN won't make one too many errors.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Check out (1) the Lordship of the Isles and (2) Wales.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Check out (1) the Lordship of the Isles and (2) Wales.
Wales was part of the Kingdom of England
Exactly.
(Although to be pedantic it was formed of two palatinate principalities plus the marcher lordships, subordinated to the Kingdom of England.)
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
The Kempton Clerk thought it would ride nearer Good to Soft - that will mean they'll go faster in the King George and on that tight track everyone's jumping will be tested. I'm not convinced ENVOI ALLEN won't make one too many errors.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Didn't much care for it myself, but seasonal guest editors are always marmite in one form or another. And they are literally here Today, gone tomorrow.
Apologies and very late to the Boxing Day horse racing party.
As I've already missed two of the Kempton Grade 1 races and CONSTITUTION HILL is 1/7 to win the Christmas Hurdle, I'll concentrate on the King George where all nine stand.
With the rain, the money has come for L'HOMME PRESSE and he looked very good giving the weight away at Newcastle. This is BRAVEMANSGAME's Gold Cup and he has a hug chance of maintaining the Nicholls record in the race and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if past winner FRODON got in the first three.
The money has come for AHOY SENOR but you're relying on going right handed sorting out his jumping and I'm not convinced. The one I like at a price is ELDORADO ALLEN - I got on at 33s just a fiver each way for an interest.
It’s all very interesting so far in the first two grade 1. Where are all the infallible superstars this year? 🤔
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
The Kempton Clerk thought it would ride nearer Good to Soft - that will mean they'll go faster in the King George and on that tight track everyone's jumping will be tested. I'm not convinced ENVOI ALLEN won't make one too many errors.
You were right, too many errors early on.
L'HOMME PRESSE beaten before unseating. 😦
A case of PLUS DE HÂTE MOINS DE VITESSE.
Silly name to give a horse.
There are non silly names given to horses now?
Some friends of mine were very pleased with themselves for getting INCA HUNT past the jockey club.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
I reckon Trump is good value at 30% for the nomination.
Other candidates will find it very hard to criticize his record, or his election-winning prospects, without incurring the wrath of his large base of support. Just imagine how this will play out in a debate.
How does another candidate say something like, "I love you Donald, you were a great President, those cheating Dems stole your reelection from you..." and find a reason why people shouldn't nominate him again?
And if they stay from that script they become an outcast.
I really don't think the GOP can escape Trump until he's lost again.
I think that's right but I also think too many may be rushing into conclusions about the midterms and its implications.
For a start, it was seen as a disappointment for the GOP mainly because there was a ramp up of expectations (and I fell for that as well). In the summer, the expectation was they would do ok but not fantastically well. That's how it turned out (they had been outsiders to win the Senate) though probably on the lower side of that initial range.
Second, there's been a tendency to say the elections showed that Trump's candidates lost and moderates did well. But that's not entirely the case. John O'Dea in the Colorado Senate race was supposed to be the archetypical moderate GOP candidate who could take the state. He got hammered. Lee Zeldin, OTOH, in NY nearly took the governorship and pulled several House candidates with him. Lake only lost by 17K votes (far closer than Masters).
Trump still should be favourite for the nomination.
In terms of vote share, the Republicans did pretty well. They won 51% to 48% in the House, on a high turnout. Not too long ago, 3% would probably give a party a lead of 50 seats or so, in the House. However, defensive gerrymandering now delivers a lead in single figures.
At Senate and Governor level, they did what they have often done since 2010. Pick God-awful candidates, who alienate a small but significant section of their supporters.
Yes, the 3% lead the GOP had has been somewhat overlooked (not least by those who talk about having the popular vote being the key to a 'legitimate' President). Florida was a key part of this but less commented on was the GOP also cemented its position in Texas even if it didn't pick up several of the border seats. For 2024, the idea FL and TX are swing states is gone.
Re the candidate quality, yes it was a factor in several states and you can see that in the results (GA - Kemp v Walker; PA - Mastriano v Oz). I guess my point is that 'credible' candidates, even if they have Trumpian views, won or put in very decent performances (Zeldin, Burr in NC, Johnson in WI). There is a lot of wishful thinking the electorate is becoming more moderate.
Isn't that lead because the Dems don't contest 100% of House seats?
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, Monarchy = Toryism.
State control of most of the economy =Socialism
Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.
So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.
It would be more accurate the other way around.
They hate both, at least in their own country.
The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.
But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.
Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?
It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
Let's not lionise Lee. The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.
And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.
Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms. The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.
As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
He was on the winning side.
Which is not quite the same thing.
As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.
An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.
I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
Washington was a good politician but a pretty average general.
His main skill was in beating retreat and keeping his force in being.
His strategy of keeping the Continental Army intact by tactical withdrawal and retaking undefended areas, recruitment of foreign allies and support was an astute one. After Saratoga the British couldn't win, but the war was not won until Yorktown.
To bring it up to date, Ukraine has won their Saratoga, but not yet their Yorktown.
That's the conventional take - as it relates to actual events as they played out - but I'm far from convinced it's true.
@Sean_F has more or less convinced me to try my hand at military history when I retire, and I will start with the papers of Howe and Clinton.
Thanks. History is full or ironies. For France and Spain, this was a golden opportunity to reverse the outcome of the Seven Years War.
The upshot was that the King of France lost his head, and Spain lost its American empire.
Yes, inferences that are seldom drawn.
Of all the wars and military histories I can think of none better demonstrate the concept that history is written by the victors than the American Revolutionary War. It's ridiculously one-sided and dominated by the USA viewpoint of patriots and divine providence.
Its myths (and they are myths) have entered the popular lexicon almost unchallenged.
Certainly were fairly unquestioned when I was at school in America. As a counterpoint this book is quite interesting on the history of Loyalist Americans fighting for the King.
Liveuamap @Liveuamap Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Sweden certainly didn’t. The concept of “Swedish” national identity is surprisingly modern. Don’t be fooled by the commonly published list of regents. Most of them are, quite literally, made up. The very few early medieval names that have reliable historical sources were maybe “kings”/chieftains/rulers, but certainly not of any political entity that could be equated with “Sweden”.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Check out (1) the Lordship of the Isles and (2) Wales.
Wales was part of the Kingdom of England
Exactly.
(Although to be pedantic it was formed of two palatinate principalities plus the marcher lordships, subordinated to the Kingdom of England.)
England was (at least technically) a papal fief for some years. Thus something less than independent?
“Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.
Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.
What kind of editor does that?
He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.
The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.
He still seems greatly attached to the idea that UK = England which is great as long as he takes that to its ultimate conclusion.
Rishi Sunak was doing the same thing last week, saying that British was “shorthand” for English.
In the 2021 census for England, they put the "British" answer to national identity above the "English" answer, a change from 2011, unsurprisingly resulting in a drop in those identifying as English. A similar change was not made for Wales.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Not quite the same as national identity though, is it? For example, what is now Belgian and the Netherlands also existed as a nation for much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. But I don't think they would regard themselves as Burgundians.
Well no as they were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century
And in 1382 became part of the Duchy of Burgundy, remaining part of it until 1482.
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
And in neither case were they independent nations therefore
You are being anachronistic, Hyufd. 'Nation States' didn't exist in the Middle Ages. You had states, many of which later became nations. The Netherlands (as they are now) were, however, part of a large effectively independent state.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
England, Scotland, Hungary, Sweden etc were through effectively nations too even then
Check out (1) the Lordship of the Isles and (2) Wales.
Wales was part of the Kingdom of England
Exactly.
(Although to be pedantic it was formed of two palatinate principalities plus the marcher lordships, subordinated to the Kingdom of England.)
England was (at least technically) a papal fief for some years. Thus something less than independent?
So was all of western Europe on that basis until the Reformation
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Sweden certainly didn’t. The concept of “Swedish” national identity is surprisingly modern. Don’t be fooled by the commonly published list of regents. Most of them are, quite literally, made up. The very few early medieval names that have reliable historical sources were maybe “kings”/chieftains/rulers, but certainly not of any political entity that could be equated with “Sweden”.
Sweden has however had its own King since 955, at least as long as England
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
Not in the same way as now, sure, that's definitely a more modern devleopment, but HYUFD is more right than usual about certain places having an approximate of it even then.
Only if the "approximate" meant loyalty to a particular monarch or royal house. Independent states existed, but the concept of nations didn't.
“Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.
Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.
What kind of editor does that?
He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.
The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.
He still seems greatly attached to the idea that UK = England which is great as long as he takes that to its ultimate conclusion.
Rishi Sunak was doing the same thing last week, saying that British was “shorthand” for English.
In the 2021 census for England, they put the "British" answer to national identity above the "English" answer, a change from 2011, unsurprisingly resulting in a drop in those identifying as English. A similar change was not made for Wales.
Of all the national identities on the daft islands, it is actually the English one which is under the most consistent and malevolent attack.
The example you quote is trivial, but it is part of a pattern.
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Sweden certainly didn’t. The concept of “Swedish” national identity is surprisingly modern. Don’t be fooled by the commonly published list of regents. Most of them are, quite literally, made up. The very few early medieval names that have reliable historical sources were maybe “kings”/chieftains/rulers, but certainly not of any political entity that could be equated with “Sweden”.
Sweden has however had its own King since 955, at least as long as England
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Sweden certainly didn’t. The concept of “Swedish” national identity is surprisingly modern. Don’t be fooled by the commonly published list of regents. Most of them are, quite literally, made up. The very few early medieval names that have reliable historical sources were maybe “kings”/chieftains/rulers, but certainly not of any political entity that could be equated with “Sweden”.
Sweden has however had its own King since 955, at least as long as England
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
This is the third time when we are being told to ignore the polls and bet against Trump. First was in late 2015, the other was when Cruz had his mini-comeback in mid-2016. He's not very popular among people outside the primary electorate, but for this bet they don't count, nor has electability counted since maybe the early 2010s.
The Stockholm Bloodbath 1520 was a consequence of conflict between Swedish pro-unionists (in favour of the Kalmar Union, then dominated by Denmark) and anti-unionists (supporters of Swedish independence), and also between the anti-unionists and the Danish aristocracy, which in other aspects was opposed to King Christian.[4] The anti-unionist party was headed by Sten Sture the Younger, and the pro-unionist party by the Archbishop Gustavus Trolle.[citation needed]
...
The Stockholm Bloodbath precipitated a lengthy hostility towards Danes in Sweden, and from then on the two nations were almost continuously hostile toward each other.
When did the pope rule England? King John made England a papal fiefdom in 1213. When did this situation formally end? Was England a papal fiefdom until the Reformation?
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s.
However, kings Edward I and Edward II, John’s grandson and great-grandson, found themselves increasingly at odds with the papacy, partly over their rights to collect their own taxes from the English church and also over the pope’s partisan support for the kings of France. As a result, no tribute was paid in the 30 years before 1330. The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s. . . .
If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.
I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.
It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.
The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
But that’s an assertion without much evidence.
First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.
There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.
It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
How can you “add” Scottish identity to British identity when Scottish identity predates it by half a millennium, arguably much longer?
I’m sure the vast majority of Scots have nothing against multiple identities in principle, but we see the Scottish one as primary. Followed probably by local/regional/city identities, then likely European. With an overarching sense of being essentially part of humankind. When “British” (shorthand for English according to the PM) identity is considered, it is usually in a negative light.
This is borne out in many decades of social research studies.
Odd how it's always for sale, though, whether the bribe is the English crown or the Darien payoff or the Mighty Kroner.
Bought and sold for English gold.
I struggle to believe any European national identity existed in the 1300s.
England, France (apart from English Gascony) and Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Portugal certainly existed as independent nations in 1300
Sweden certainly didn’t. The concept of “Swedish” national identity is surprisingly modern. Don’t be fooled by the commonly published list of regents. Most of them are, quite literally, made up. The very few early medieval names that have reliable historical sources were maybe “kings”/chieftains/rulers, but certainly not of any political entity that could be equated with “Sweden”.
Sweden has however had its own King since 955, at least as long as England
I am very familiar with that figure, and have even visited the alleged “Olaf Grave” at the gorgeous little Husaby Church. But he was a fleeting ruler of the Mälaren Valley and Västergötland, not of ”Sweden”.
Most of his supposed “biography” is blatant propaganda invented by Adam of Bremen.
He described himself as ''Svearnas king'' or ''King in Sigtuna''.
WRT national identity,I don’t think modern ideas of national sovereignty can be said to be predate the Treaty of Westphalia.
The idea that a realm belonged to a family, and not its people, was the norm before 1648, and long after, in some parts.
References to the Spanish Empire or Habsburg Empire are anachronisms. There were a series of kingdoms, duchies, and counties, each with its own laws, that owed allegiance to the Head of the House.
I reckon Trump is good value at 30% for the nomination.
Other candidates will find it very hard to criticize his record, or his election-winning prospects, without incurring the wrath of his large base of support. Just imagine how this will play out in a debate.
How does another candidate say something like, "I love you Donald, you were a great President, those cheating Dems stole your reelection from you..." and find a reason why people shouldn't nominate him again?
And if they stay from that script they become an outcast.
I really don't think the GOP can escape Trump until he's lost again.
I think that's right but I also think too many may be rushing into conclusions about the midterms and its implications.
For a start, it was seen as a disappointment for the GOP mainly because there was a ramp up of expectations (and I fell for that as well). In the summer, the expectation was they would do ok but not fantastically well. That's how it turned out (they had been outsiders to win the Senate) though probably on the lower side of that initial range.
Second, there's been a tendency to say the elections showed that Trump's candidates lost and moderates did well. But that's not entirely the case. John O'Dea in the Colorado Senate race was supposed to be the archetypical moderate GOP candidate who could take the state. He got hammered. Lee Zeldin, OTOH, in NY nearly took the governorship and pulled several House candidates with him. Lake only lost by 17K votes (far closer than Masters).
Trump still should be favourite for the nomination.
It is worth noting, though, that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Arizona was pretty awful, and that she refused to even debate with Lake.
When did the pope rule England? King John made England a papal fiefdom in 1213. When did this situation formally end? Was England a papal fiefdom until the Reformation?
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s.
However, kings Edward I and Edward II, John’s grandson and great-grandson, found themselves increasingly at odds with the papacy, partly over their rights to collect their own taxes from the English church and also over the pope’s partisan support for the kings of France. As a result, no tribute was paid in the 30 years before 1330. The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s. . . .
A papal fief meant little. The Kingdom of Naples was a papal fief, but its kings were practically independent.
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
I listen to the BBC World Service Global News Podcast in the morning. It’s just news and reminds me that our domestic problems are but one tear in the world’s many sorrows. I’ve never been able to listen to Today.
Yes, that's a very healthy reminder. Worrying about the ups and downs of celebrities seems especially piffling when you hear the news from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
Oh, that’s easy.
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
WRT national identity,I don’t think modern ideas of national sovereignty can be said to be predate the Treaty of Westphalia.
The idea that a realm belonged to a family, and not its people, was the norm before 1648, and long after, in some parts.
References to the Spanish Empire or Habsburg Empire are anachronisms. There were a series of kingdoms, duchies, and counties, each with its own laws, that owed allegiance to the Head of the House.
Even arrangements like the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth were solely about the nobility.
The Stockholm Bloodbath 1520 was a consequence of conflict between Swedish pro-unionists (in favour of the Kalmar Union, then dominated by Denmark) and anti-unionists (supporters of Swedish independence), and also between the anti-unionists and the Danish aristocracy, which in other aspects was opposed to King Christian.[4] The anti-unionist party was headed by Sten Sture the Younger, and the pro-unionist party by the Archbishop Gustavus Trolle.[citation needed]
...
The Stockholm Bloodbath precipitated a lengthy hostility towards Danes in Sweden, and from then on the two nations were almost continuously hostile toward each other.
Ditto much of Central Europe after the brutality and atrocity of the Swedish invasion. Yet today they seem such mild mannered folk.
When did the pope rule England? King John made England a papal fiefdom in 1213. When did this situation formally end? Was England a papal fiefdom until the Reformation?
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s.
However, kings Edward I and Edward II, John’s grandson and great-grandson, found themselves increasingly at odds with the papacy, partly over their rights to collect their own taxes from the English church and also over the pope’s partisan support for the kings of France. As a result, no tribute was paid in the 30 years before 1330. The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s. . . .
A papal fief meant little. The Kingdom of Naples was a papal fief, but its kings were practically independent.
Your point is sound. AND you are NOT changing goal posts.
My point, is that England's "independence" was hardly total at key points of it's checkered past.
Also, that history is a bit more complex that some proponents of "true" history can comprehend.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
To be fair, that's a pretty low bar. That's a bit like saying somebody is less useless than the average civil servant at the DfE.
Joe McCarthy was a Power to Be Reckoned With in mid-20th-century US politics. Until he wasn't.
Gallup poll findings:
1950 "Shortly after the U.S. Senator from Wisconsin declared that communists had infiltrated the State Department, 46% of those familiar with his charges thought it brought more good than harm; 35% thought the charges were doing more harm than good."
1954 "In the midst of the Army-McCarthy hearings in Congress, only 35% of Americans held a favorable view of Senator McCarthy, 49% held an unfavorable view."
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
To be fair, that's a pretty low bar. That's a bit like saying somebody is less useless than the average civil servant at the DfE.
Never said that "performance" of Trump OR the Five Stooges (Davy, Terry, Bojo, Liz & Rishi) was of high standard. Obviously the opposite!
But dissing Joe Biden is a chumps game, methinks.
Remember what Abe Lincoln said to folks, who criticized General Grant for his drinking problem?
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
To be fair, that's a pretty low bar. That's a bit like saying somebody is less useless than the average civil servant at the DfE.
Never said that "performance" of Trump OR the Five Stooges (Davy, Terry, Bojo, Liz & Rishi) was of high standard. Obviously the opposite!
But dissing Joe Biden is a chumps game, methinks.
Remember what Abe Lincoln said to folks, who criticized General Grant for his drinking problem?
The possibly apocryphal one about sending all his generals whatever Grant was drinking, or the one after Shiloh where he curtly refused to court martial Grant by saying 'I can't spare this man. He fights?'
I’d like to concur with previous posters: R4 Today totally unlistenable. Botham belongs to that rare category of intolerable ultra-pricks. What were the BBC thinking?
Who listens to the Today programme on Boxing Day anyway?
It is for a fry up and dog walk, followed by the footy.
One of the best things I did for general wellbeing was to switch off the today programme and news. It’s not healthy to start the day annoyed, disappointed, aggravated or enraged. I recommend listening to some music, an audiobook or a podcast instead. It’s a top tip.
Yes couldn't agree more Jonathan, can't stand the Today programme, it's basically "this is what you should be worried/angry about and it's very important". Imho 95% of news can be safely ignored, a lot of it is totally pointless.
Why waste time/energy being annoyed about things you have no control over? Better to sort out your own life the best you can.
I'm much more into music than politics these days, so much more uplifting and enjoyable.
I still prefer politics but I also find the Today program wearisome. The solution to almost every problem is (a) spend more public money; (b) regulate something more closely or (c) both. There is never any attempt to insert some perspective: if we are spending more on X what do we spend less on? There is a reluctance to recognise the complexities that governments inevitably have to deal with and overcome and there is an insufferable habit of talking over the answers as if they are not worth listening to and simply get in the road of the next fabulous point by the presenter.
It's grim and getting worse. The very odd occasion when some expert is on and simply asked to provide clear information in a comprehensible form comes as blessed relief.
I was talking to some friends the other days - a doctor couple. Worked in the NHS all their working lives.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there. *
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
* Not in the major UK retail bank I worked for.
Cast-off, slow laptop - if you're lucky. UserID: 50/50 chance on day one. Chair? Don't be silly, it's all hot-desking obvs.
(I mean, 'brand new chair' - what a f*cking waste, what happens to the old ones?)
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
To be fair, that's a pretty low bar. That's a bit like saying somebody is less useless than the average civil servant at the DfE.
Never said that "performance" of Trump OR the Five Stooges (Davy, Terry, Bojo, Liz & Rishi) was of high standard. Obviously the opposite!
But dissing Joe Biden is a chumps game, methinks.
Remember what Abe Lincoln said to folks, who criticized General Grant for his drinking problem?
The possibly apocryphal one about sending all his generals whatever Grant was drinking, or the one after Shiloh where he curtly refused to court martial Grant by saying 'I can't spare this man. He fights?'
Many of the reports of his drinking were political attacks, and often contradicted by those actually present (as was the case at Shiloh). It seems likely that he had a serious problem with alcohol, which was most of the time (and almost invariably when in active command) kept under determined control.
And he was a much better President than he is often assessed.
Is the 2024 GOP Primary season going to be as dramatic as 1976 when Reagan pushed Ford very hard ? The parallels are far from exact but I suspect it's going to be as entertaining.
Except Ford was the incumbent President.
While sleepy Joe is the recumbent president.
Somnolent?
Biden has gotten more done - that's positive anyway - in two years than Trump in four.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
Comments
Today is one of my infrequent destinations when the fancy takes me. “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy”. 😉
You don’t fancy Envoi Allen? It’s not all that soft at Kempton as suggested.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/26/three-cheers-for-terf-island/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Middle_Ages
I suppose you could argue about whether 18 years is 'much.'
I still enjoy the news, though. I'd like to live forever, just to find out how it all turns out...
But the risks involved are high. Too high, I would say.
The Burgundian Low Countries are an interesting example because they passed rapidly from hand to hand after 1483 and eventually formed a definitively separate identity from Germany and France as a result. In addition to their opposition to Spanish rule (again, a Burgundian legacy) and the wars of independence, this was a factor leading to the First Dutch Republics in the later sixteenth century.
It was also Attlee's Labour who gave up India, not the Tories
@Liveuamap
Vice-President of "Vladmirsky Standart" company and MP of Vladimir legislative assembly Pavel Antov has died after falling out of the window of hotel in Rayagada, Odisha, India
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1607363584148791298
Re the candidate quality, yes it was a factor in several states and you can see that in the results (GA - Kemp v Walker; PA - Mastriano v Oz). I guess my point is that 'credible' candidates, even if they have Trumpian views, won or put in very decent performances (Zeldin, Burr in NC, Johnson in WI). There is a lot of wishful thinking the electorate is becoming more moderate.
I was struck by their complete misunderstanding of the works of private work - they assumed, instinctively, that conditions must be worse than the NHS. Which they regarded as dire.
They were quite open mouthed about the level of “just works” in various companies I worked for. First day on the job, new laptop in the box for you to unpack and setup. Brand new chair. Email and other accounts setup and linked via single sign on…. And it just goes on from there.
In particular, the NHS version of HR seem to be arseholes who don’t acknowledge the existence of employment law, from what they said.
If we use 1950s conditions in the public sector, is it any wonder industrial relations seem to be like that as well?
L'HOMME PRESSE beaten before unseating. 😦
World wide ban on the export of Russian made windows is required.
Cast-off, slow laptop - if you're lucky. UserID: 50/50 chance on day one. Chair? Don't be silly, it's all hot-desking obvs.
(I mean, 'brand new chair' - what a f*cking waste, what happens to the old ones?)
Perhaps the only unifiying element is uncertainty around what the HR departments are up to.
Silly name to give a horse.
(Although to be pedantic it was formed of two palatinate principalities plus the marcher lordships, subordinated to the Kingdom of England.)
And they are literally here Today, gone tomorrow.
Data from @beisgovuk shows Scotland 🏴 relied on more nuclear power to generate its electricity than any other UK nation from 2017 - 2021.
@NIAUK media release: https://niauk.org/scotland-uses-most-nuclear-energy-of-all-uk-nations-for-fifth-year-running/…
https://twitter.com/NIAUK/status/1606268455442792448
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/historiography-of-american-revolution/
As far as what's taught in school, I refer you to out current government's efforts in that direction.
It has little to do with history.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ron-desantis-holds-early-lead-over-donald-trump-among-gop-primary-voters-wsj-poll-shows-11670989311
If you're following the polls, then bet against Trump.
Or the Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak "government" in double that time? Under FIVE Fearless "Leaders"!
In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end. Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct. Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
The example you quote is trivial, but it is part of a pattern.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Have another pint while the going’s good.
https://thehill.com/homenews/3782626-desantis-trump-differences-come-into-view/
The Stockholm Bloodbath 1520 was a consequence of conflict between Swedish pro-unionists (in favour of the Kalmar Union, then dominated by Denmark) and anti-unionists (supporters of Swedish independence), and also between the anti-unionists and the Danish aristocracy, which in other aspects was opposed to King Christian.[4] The anti-unionist party was headed by Sten Sture the Younger, and the pro-unionist party by the Archbishop Gustavus Trolle.[citation needed]
...
The Stockholm Bloodbath precipitated a lengthy hostility towards Danes in Sweden, and from then on the two nations were almost continuously hostile toward each other.
King John made England a papal fiefdom in 1213. When did this situation formally end? Was England a papal fiefdom until the Reformation?
https://www.historyextra.com/period/norman/when-did-the-pope-rule-england/
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s.
However, kings Edward I and Edward II, John’s grandson and great-grandson, found themselves increasingly at odds with the papacy, partly over their rights to collect their own taxes from the English church and also over the pope’s partisan support for the kings of France. As a result, no tribute was paid in the 30 years before 1330. The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.
King John’s surrender of his realm in 1213 was symbolised by his agreement to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (£666). This tribute was paid, albeit irregularly, into the 1290s. . . .
Most of his supposed “biography” is blatant propaganda invented by Adam of Bremen.
He described himself as ''Svearnas king'' or ''King in Sigtuna''.
The idea that a realm belonged to a family, and not its people, was the norm before 1648, and long after, in some parts.
References to the Spanish Empire or Habsburg Empire are anachronisms. There were a series of kingdoms, duchies, and counties, each with its own laws, that owed allegiance to the Head of the House.
My point, is that England's "independence" was hardly total at key points of it's checkered past.
Also, that history is a bit more complex that some proponents of "true" history can comprehend.
Perhaps there's nervousness about our level of reserves.
Gallup poll findings:
1950 "Shortly after the U.S. Senator from Wisconsin declared that communists had infiltrated the State Department, 46% of those familiar with his charges thought it brought more good than harm; 35% thought the charges were doing more harm than good."
1954 "In the midst of the Army-McCarthy hearings in Congress, only 35% of Americans held a favorable view of Senator McCarthy, 49% held an unfavorable view."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/9964/timeline-polling-history-people-shaped-united-states-world.aspx
But dissing Joe Biden is a chumps game, methinks.
Remember what Abe Lincoln said to folks, who criticized General Grant for his drinking problem?
https://twitter.com/thattimwalker/status/1607376738190823425
gone the way of Trump's presidency
It seems likely that he had a serious problem with alcohol, which was most of the time (and almost invariably when in active command) kept under determined control.
And he was a much better President than he is often assessed.