The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
Hard to think of anything built in the concrete and glass era that's pleasing, rather than impressive.
Also hard to think of a city where cars and highways are an adornment, rather than a source of noise, ugliness and division. Maybe necessary for some functions, but to be kept out of the way. Like toilets.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
Well, yes.
And it is a well founded lack of confidence.
If we had the Estonian system I would be fully in favour of ID cards but we won't because our lot would never countenance it. So I'm against them.
The lack of confidence in an ID card scheme is related to the objective fact that last time the government tried to U.K. I’m ok event an ID all the lunatics in the system crawled out.
And designed a system to link all your personal data together in an easy to steal from system. With access given to everyone in government. So the chap investigating bin misusage would have access to your medical records and tax data.
So insane was this, that the lunatics added a special category for VIPs who would have their data specially sequestered. VIP = politicians, the lunatics, their friends they nominated*….
Lack of confidence. No, it’s total confidence that given another go, the same shit show will be repeated.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
Well, yes.
And it is a well founded lack of confidence.
If we had the Estonian system I would be fully in favour of ID cards but we won't because our lot would never countenance it. So I'm against them.
The lack of confidence in an ID card scheme is related to the objective fact that last time the government tried to U.K. I’m ok event an ID all the lunatics in the system crawled out.
And designed a system to link all your personal data together in an easy to steal from system. With access given to everyone in government. So the chap investigating bin misusage would have access to your medical records and tax data.
So insane was this, that the lunatics added a special category for VIPs who would have their data specially sequestered. VIP = politicians, the lunatics, their friends they nominated*….
Lack of confidence. No, it’s total confidence that given another go, the same shit show will be repeated.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
We had that at Aberystwyth too, although truthfully at Penglais it's more a 'charming original wing' (Cledwyn/Pantycelyn) on the ugly modern rest of it (Penglais, Llandinam, Hugh Owen, Edward Llwyd, IMAPS).
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
We had that at Aberystwyth too, although truthfully at Penglais it's more a 'charming original wing' (Cledwyn/Pantycelyn) on the ugly modern rest of it (Penglais, Llandinam, Hugh Owen, Edward Llwyd, IMAPS).
The incongruous new Student Union frontage on Park Place in Cardiff is an awful monstrosity. Worse than the 1970s building it replaced. Why do they do this?
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
Well, yes.
And it is a well founded lack of confidence.
If we had the Estonian system I would be fully in favour of ID cards but we won't because our lot would never countenance it. So I'm against them.
The lack of confidence in an ID card scheme is related to the objective fact that last time the government tried to U.K. I’m ok event an ID all the lunatics in the system crawled out.
And designed a system to link all your personal data together in an easy to steal from system. With access given to everyone in government. So the chap investigating bin misusage would have access to your medical records and tax data.
So insane was this, that the lunatics added a special category for VIPs who would have their data specially sequestered. VIP = politicians, the lunatics, their friends they nominated*….
Lack of confidence. No, it’s total confidence that given another go, the same shit show will be repeated.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic
system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan
reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
One of the finest PB posts for a long, long time. Deserves everyone of its 19 likes, and more.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
We had that at Aberystwyth too, although truthfully at Penglais it's more a 'charming original wing' (Cledwyn/Pantycelyn) on the ugly modern rest of it (Penglais, Llandinam, Hugh Owen, Edward Llwyd, IMAPS).
The premise that 19th century is the ideal city though. The Victorians smashed up and uglified London and the industrial cities of Britain no end. Lewisham had rows of timbered Elizabethan shops before they moved in with their shovels. 18th century and early 19th up to about 1840 OK, then it went downhill.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
Or more or less any hospital that originates before 1948. My hospital has a Georgian wing opposite a 1950s block with a 1980s concrete bunker attached and a 5 year old new Emergency dept. Architecturally awful, and yet a living building evolving alongside the NHS itself. Architecture should not be fossilised at any moment of time.
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
Missed it. Do explain.
This one I presume. AfaIcs Kemi’s ‘not Liz Truss’ rep rests largely on her not looking or sounding glaikit while spouting the same reality avoiding ideology driven guff.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
Or more or less any hospital that originates before 1948. My hospital has a Georgian wing opposite a 1950s block with a 1980s concrete bunker attached and a 5 year old new Emergency dept. Architecturally awful, and yet a living building evolving alongside the NHS itself. Architecture should not be fossilised at any moment of time.
The problem is immortalising the crap. Alexander Fleming House was the poster child for sick building syndrome. But hey, let’s preserve it. And give it an architectural award. Because it was designed by a Good Chap.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
Or more or less any hospital that originates before 1948. My hospital has a Georgian wing opposite a 1950s block with a 1980s concrete bunker attached and a 5 year old new Emergency dept. Architecturally awful, and yet a living building evolving alongside the NHS itself. Architecture should not be fossilised at any moment of time.
The problem is immortalising the crap. Alexander Fleming House was the poster child for sick building syndrome. But hey, let’s preserve it. And give it an architectural award. Because it was designed by a Good Chap.
When old St George's Hospital at Hyde Park Corner (now the Lanesborough Hotel) was grade 1 listed, the listing covered everything including the 1970's portakabins. It took a while for the Duke of Westminster to get it sorted. He did though get 13 acres of Belgravia for £10 000 as the original deal was that if the site was no longer used as a hospital, then he could buy it back at the purchase price.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
"America’s oldest shame is violence, not racism Ideology alone does not explain police killings in the United States. By Tomiwa Owolade"
Yes - as we were saying the other day, piles of guns aren’t the cause. There are societies with even more guns - but the violence is much lower.
There are are societies with much worse race relations.
I’ve had Americans describe to me the sense, when overseas of relaxing after a while. When they catch-up with the fact that an argument in a shop nearly certainly won’t escalate into gun violence. That the slightly crazy man shouting at pigeons won’t get shot by the police….
It is simply false to say that a GRC grants no additional rights. It’s false to say that it won’t matter in law. It’s false to say that the GRR bill which give access to a GRC to anyone who wants one will not effect the operation of the Equality Act.….
Whether this is to be welcome as a good thing or criticised as a bad idea is separate to what the law does and would do under the GRR. It would be helpful if we could at least be clear about how the law operates and will change.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
Or more or less any hospital that originates before 1948. My hospital has a Georgian wing opposite a 1950s block with a 1980s concrete bunker attached and a 5 year old new Emergency dept. Architecturally awful, and yet a living building evolving alongside the NHS itself. Architecture should not be fossilised at any moment of time.
The problem is immortalising the crap. Alexander Fleming House was the poster child for sick building syndrome. But hey, let’s preserve it. And give it an architectural award. Because it was designed by a Good Chap.
When old St George's Hospital at Hyde Park Corner (now the Lanesborough Hotel) was grade 1 listed, the listing covered everything including the 1970's portakabins. It took a while for the Duke of Westminster to get it sorted. He did though get 13 acres of Belgravia for £10 000 as the original deal was that if the site was no longer used as a hospital, then he could buy it back at the purchase price.
Under Blair, I recall, they tried shutting a whole bunch of TA drill halls in London. There was much consternation when the idiots realised that the actual properties had been rented from the Duke of Westminster at peppercorn rates and reverted to him automatically when they stopped being used.
Will we see the Countess of Swinton elected tonight?
What long overlooked Piano Concerto are we exploring as we wait for this Thursday nights results Slade?
I can offer a very Un Skriabin like Rachmaninovesque Piano concerto from Skriabin. If any one likes the Rachmaninov concertos but yet to hear Skriabin youthful work.
like someone like Schoenberg, Skriabin early work is also romantic tradition before moving into his own experimental musical universe. For me his later piano sonata work is the pinnacle of his career, very dreamy and otherworldly but with presence of dark and shadows.
What is the future of the human species? Does the human species even have a future? We are the first generation (more or less) to understand the true purpose of our existence. Are there any highly educated societies where the fertility rate is above replacement level? The picture in Korea and Japan is extraordinary. The UK is catching up. It's been fashionable to think that humanity would end with a bang. Maybe it will be a whimper. It's surprising that we don't talk about this more.
It is currently quite hard to see the trend reversing. The high cost of living, more singledom, lives lived in front of screens, high expectations. I hope I'll be looked after in my old age.
What is the future of the human species? Does the human species even have a future? We are the first generation (more or less) to understand the true purpose of our existence. Are there any highly educated societies where the fertility rate is above replacement level? The picture in Korea and Japan is extraordinary. The UK is catching up. It's been fashionable to think that humanity would end with a bang. Maybe it will be a whimper. It's surprising that we don't talk about this more.
It is currently quite hard to see the trend reversing. The high cost of living, more singledom, lives lived in front of screens, high expectations. I hope I'll be looked after in my old age.
A ChatGPT-enabled bot will dribble baby-food into your mouth and utter platitudes. For a fee. It'll be fine.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
Will we see the Countess of Swinton elected tonight?
What long overlooked Piano Concerto are we exploring as we wait for this Thursday nights results Slade?
I can offer a very Un Skriabin like Rachmaninovesque Piano concerto from Skriabin. If any one likes the Rachmaninov concertos but yet to hear Skriabin youthful work.
like someone like Schoenberg, Skriabin early work is also romantic tradition before moving into his own experimental musical universe. For me his later piano sonata work is the pinnacle of his career, very dreamy and otherworldly but with presence of dark and shadows.
What is the future of the human species? Does the human species even have a future? We are the first generation (more or less) to understand the true purpose of our existence. Are there any highly educated societies where the fertility rate is above replacement level? The picture in Korea and Japan is extraordinary. The UK is catching up. It's been fashionable to think that humanity would end with a bang. Maybe it will be a whimper. It's surprising that we don't talk about this more.
It is currently quite hard to see the trend reversing. The high cost of living, more singledom, lives lived in front of screens, high expectations. I hope I'll be looked after in my old age.
Are you teasing? You say you belong to a generation that more or less understands the true purpose of our species's existence, but you don't say what it is. What is it? :-)
I don't believe it's either to pass down our genes or to hand over to self-programming computers. I can't think of any other new answers that have been offered recently though. And maybe the question was wrong.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
What is the future of the human species? Does the human species even have a future? We are the first generation (more or less) to understand the true purpose of our existence. Are there any highly educated societies where the fertility rate is above replacement level? The picture in Korea and Japan is extraordinary. The UK is catching up. It's been fashionable to think that humanity would end with a bang. Maybe it will be a whimper. It's surprising that we don't talk about this more.
It is currently quite hard to see the trend reversing. The high cost of living, more singledom, lives lived in front of screens, high expectations. I hope I'll be looked after in my old age.
I'll be optimistic about humanity's future when we work out a way to identify and isolate psychopaths rather than making them CEOs or Presidents.
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
Yes. Conservatives kept same % of vote as labour fell by 20% - no reason why they shouldn’t have stuck with Labour rather than tempted elsewhere was there?
Watching Julie Etchingham's police expose, Women and the Police, the inside story. Wow, we are in a bad state when serving police officer's have nicknames like "Rapey", "Kissy" and "Dave the Rapist". Not just the Met, it's across the country.
The culture for serving police women appears dreadful, particularly younger officers, who appear to be routinely sexualy assaulted by their male colleagues, and the culprits are protected by the hierarchy. Complainants on the other hand are ostracised and moved on.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
“Only lost because of changes elsewhere”
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes, there’s no reason why you can’t have your gropes and still vote how you like on the day. They must have liked her policies.
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
“Only lost because of changes elsewhere”
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes, there’s no reason why you can’t have your gropes and still vote how you like on the day. They must have liked her policies.
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
“Only lost because of changes elsewhere”
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes, there’s no reason why you can’t have your gropes and still vote how you like on the day. They must have liked her policies.
What are you on about? Silly Billy.
Still can’t resist reading my post, Nando’s. But you still have no understanding of how politics works, have you?
The psephological princess I am I have explained exactly how Labour have lost tonight. Labour had votes enticed away from them because voters genuinely preferred the policy platform of another candidate.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
“Only lost because of changes elsewhere”
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes…
I think that would likely be illegal.
Though granted voting for tits, and indeed electing them, is a very longstanding tradition.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
Snooker on a monochrome set would just be nothing but balls.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I may be misremembering, but sometimes it ran instead of children’s TV. And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I may be misremembering, but sometimes it ran instead of children’s TV. And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
If this is not a wind up and they actually televised some TUC Conference live, I think I can guess why - the BBC unions would strike if the management don’t do it.
Or showing the big Union politburo meeting was actually a right wing plot to destroy the Union movement.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I may be misremembering, but sometimes it ran instead of children’s TV. And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
That is probably true. Quite often one would see a dozen of those big Bedford Outside Broadcast trucks at such an event, staff and trailing cables everywhere. Of course we didn't have daytime TV, save for the test card, and everything closed down after the national anthem at 11pm, So a firebrand speech by Jack Jones was something of a treat.
Perhaps our parents generation were better engaged. I remember as a kid, Len Murray, Mick McGahey, Hugh Scanlon and Clive Jenkins were household names. And now the only regional voice we hear is 30p Lee.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I may be misremembering, but sometimes it ran instead of children’s TV. And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
That is probably true. Quite often one would see a dozen of those big Bedford Outside Broadcast trucks at such an event, staff and trailing cables everywhere. Of course we didn't have daytime TV, save for the test card, and everything closed down after the national anthem at 11pm, So a firebrand speech by Jack Jones was something of a treat.
Perhaps our parents generation were better engaged. I remember as a kid, Len Murray, Mick McGahey, Hugh Scanlon and Clive Jenkins were household names. And now the only regional voice we hear is 30p Lee.
Ha ha ha, Nope. You are trying to mug us off here arn’t you?
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
I'm convinced TV was better when there were only 4 channels, ie. from 1982 to 1997.
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
You've never been to Gloucester, Coventry, Cannock, Warwick, Walsall, Dudley, Telford, Birmingham, Stoke?
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
Or, more painfully still, the "ugly modern wing" phenomenon at Oxbridge colleges.
Or more or less any hospital that originates before 1948. My hospital has a Georgian wing opposite a 1950s block with a 1980s concrete bunker attached and a 5 year old new Emergency dept. Architecturally awful, and yet a living building evolving alongside the NHS itself. Architecture should not be fossilised at any moment of time.
The problem is immortalising the crap. Alexander Fleming House was the poster child for sick building syndrome. But hey, let’s preserve it. And give it an architectural award. Because it was designed by a Good Chap.
When old St George's Hospital at Hyde Park Corner (now the Lanesborough Hotel) was grade 1 listed, the listing covered everything including the 1970's portakabins. It took a while for the Duke of Westminster to get it sorted. He did though get 13 acres of Belgravia for £10 000 as the original deal was that if the site was no longer used as a hospital, then he could buy it back at the purchase price.
My father worked there in the 1970s. Apparently was quite the collection of artifacts in the basement, many of which would seriously freak out visitors.
I was there a couple of months ago, for a rather lovely afternoon tea.
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
It depends how you frame the question. Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws). But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
Was it Labour Left versus Labour pragmatists for Callaghan to hate it?
More unions vs pragmatists, perhaps ? But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions. The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
But you only had three channels! Why on earth would they want to do that?
Cheap telly, and it worked better than the snooker in monchrome.
I may be misremembering, but sometimes it ran instead of children’s TV. And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
That is probably true. Quite often one would see a dozen of those big Bedford Outside Broadcast trucks at such an event, staff and trailing cables everywhere. Of course we didn't have daytime TV, save for the test card, and everything closed down after the national anthem at 11pm, So a firebrand speech by Jack Jones was something of a treat.
Perhaps our parents generation were better engaged. I remember as a kid, Len Murray, Mick McGahey, Hugh Scanlon and Clive Jenkins were household names. And now the only regional voice we hear is 30p Lee.
Ha ha ha, Nope. You are trying to mug us off here arn’t you?
As usual.
No, it’s true. And reasonable odds that Mexpete was more familiar with those than most of the cabinet.
Only lost because of changes elsewhere, but interesting there was no conservative collapse.
“Only lost because of changes elsewhere”
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes…
I think that would likely be illegal.
Though granted voting for tits, and indeed electing them, is a very longstanding tradition.
Not just potential electoral law breaking, but I’m saying as armchair student of electoral politics, I wouldn’t even expect it to work. Specifically wouldn’t expect the voting to exceed the groping.
Comments
Also hard to think of a city where cars and highways are an adornment, rather than a source of noise, ugliness and division. Maybe necessary for some functions, but to be kept out of the way. Like toilets.
Gloucester and Warwick are especially painful because the ghastly concrete monstrosities are next too, and completely spoil, some genuinely charming Georgian and Victorian buildings.
And designed a system to link all your personal data together in an easy to steal from system. With access given to everyone in government. So the chap investigating bin misusage would have access to your medical records and tax data.
So insane was this, that the lunatics added a special category for VIPs who would have their data specially sequestered. VIP = politicians, the lunatics, their friends they nominated*….
Lack of confidence. No, it’s total confidence that given another go, the same shit show will be repeated.
*Yes, really
She disappeared into FinnAir.
https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/
Who can forget my recent effort which literally went over the head of some PBers?
'I know it's a long shot but does anyone know what a trebuchet is?'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/09/truss-allies-calls-sweeping-tax-cuts-fuel-further-tory-infighting
Jesus wept. What an ill-informed twit. Where do they find these clowns?
Britain Elects forecast was quite accurate in Chester I recall. This is their prediction for tonight in West Lancs. Sounds about right to me.
LAB: 63% (+11)
CON: 26% (-10)
REF: 5% (+5)
GRN: 4% (+2)
LDEM: 3% (-2)
via Britain Predicts
sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/02/conser…
Stuart Heritage"
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/feb/08/why-the-fawlty-towers-remake-is-a-truly-nauseating-idea-john-cleese
Worse than poll rampers.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/02/america-oldest-shame-is-violence-racism-police-poverty
"America’s oldest shame is violence, not racism
Ideology alone does not explain police killings in the United States.
By Tomiwa Owolade"
I was defending the In Place Of Strife attempt by Wilson, to my daughter (doing GCSE), on the basis that while it failed, it was (a) a genuine attempt at breaking the vicious (and worsening) cycle in industrial relations and (b) some of the ideas that came out of the failure formed the basis of modern, low conflict types of industrial relations.
She says, no - just a failure.
Thoughts?
There are are societies with much worse race relations.
I’ve had Americans describe to me the sense, when overseas of relaxing after a while. When they catch-up with the fact that an argument in a shop nearly certainly won’t escalate into gun violence. That the slightly crazy man shouting at pigeons won’t get shot by the police….
It is simply false to say that a GRC grants no additional rights. It’s false to say that it won’t matter in law. It’s false to say that the GRR bill which give access to a GRC to anyone who wants one will not effect the operation of the Equality Act.….
Whether this is to be welcome as a good thing or criticised as a bad idea is separate to what the law does and would do under the GRR. It would be helpful if we could at least be clear about how the law operates and will change.
https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1623734700354289667
Bit like the Albert Hall fiasco, really.
I can offer a very Un Skriabin like Rachmaninovesque Piano concerto from Skriabin.
If any one likes the Rachmaninov concertos but yet to hear Skriabin youthful work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F734PyD3NAw
like someone like Schoenberg, Skriabin early work is also romantic tradition before moving into his own experimental musical universe. For me his later piano sonata work is the pinnacle of his career, very dreamy and otherworldly but with presence of dark and shadows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1luIOQHLw
It is currently quite hard to see the trend reversing. The high cost of living, more singledom, lives lived in front of screens, high expectations. I hope I'll be looked after in my old age.
Had Castle had full cabinet backing, then it might indeed have been a remarkably successful piece of legislation (and its ideas did find their way into later laws).
But given the makeup of the then Labour party, it was pretty well inevitable that someone like Callaghan would run an effective internal campaign against it. And Wilson was never sufficiently brave, or committed to the idea, to resist that.
It was certainly a genuine attempt by Castle.
I don't believe it's either to pass down our genes or to hand over to self-programming computers. I can't think of any other new answers that have been offered recently though. And maybe the question was wrong.
CON: 40.1% (-0.5)
LAB: 38.8% (-20.7)
PC: 12.0% (+12.0)
IND: 8.6% (+8.6)
LDEM: 0.6% (+0.6)
Votes cast: 841
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
"Rhyl Ty Newydd (Denbighshire) council by-election result:
CON: 40.1% (-0.5)
LAB: 38.8% (-20.7)
PC: 12.0% (+12.0)
IND: 8.6% (+8.6)
LDEM: 0.6% (+0.6)
Votes cast: 841
Conservative GAIN from Labour."
Watching Julie Etchingham's police expose, Women and the Police, the inside story. Wow, we are in a bad state when serving police officer's have nicknames like "Rapey", "Kissy" and "Dave the Rapist". Not just the Met, it's across the country.
The culture for serving police women appears dreadful, particularly younger officers, who appear to be routinely sexualy assaulted by their male colleagues, and the culprits are protected by the hierarchy. Complainants on the other hand are ostracised and moved on.
But I guess that’s not dissimilar.
I was way too young to understand any of this at the time - but one thing I do recall from my subsequent seventies childhood was the extraordinary institutional strength of the unions.
The (largely incomprehensible, and stultifyingly boring) TUC conference, for example, was broadcast live on TV for hours at a time.
Yes I understand. How it actually works is if even one of the candidates who enticed Labours votes away from them had the best titties in town, and offered gropes for votes, there’s no reason why you can’t have your gropes and still vote how you like on the day. They must have liked her policies.
The psephological princess I am I have explained exactly how Labour have lost tonight. Labour had votes enticed away from them because voters genuinely preferred the policy platform of another candidate.
We ought to turn it into a completion, whoever is closest wins.
I’ll go with closer to wife’s parents so handy for child care.
Though granted voting for tits, and indeed electing them, is a very longstanding tradition.
And outside broadcasts wouldn’t have been that cheap to set up back then.
Or showing the big Union politburo meeting was actually a right wing plot to destroy the Union movement.
Brooke Victoria Hull (Conservative Party) received 801 votes.
There were a total of 15 spoilt votes.
Perhaps our parents generation were better engaged. I remember as a kid, Len Murray, Mick McGahey, Hugh Scanlon and Clive Jenkins were household names. And now the only regional voice we hear is 30p Lee.
As usual.
Great night.
Lab +10.2%
Con -10.9%
I was there a couple of months ago, for a rather lovely afternoon tea.
And reasonable odds that Mexpete was more familiar with those than most of the cabinet.
Result
LAB: 62.3% (+10.2)
CON: 25.4% (-10.9)
REF: 4.4% (+0.1)
LDEM: 4.1% (-0.8)
GRN: 2.9% (+0.5)
MRLP: 0.9% (+0.9)
Labour HOLD.
This is based on the same MRP that has 138 Tory MPs after the next GE and 424 Labour.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britain-predicts-who-would-win-election-held-today
That’s what we call votes for Labour in our part of the world.