Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Huge blow for the SNP in new Scottish YouGov poll – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,844
    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Recognise both you and ME as such.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    Let's start with A. Aardvark.

    Medium-sized insectivore with protruding nasal implement.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,406

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Geert Hofstede's research on dimensions of culture used international survey data to do precisely what Kinabula declares to be impossible. Hofstede's research has been rebutted by others but not very successfully in my opinion.

    https://www.hofstede-insights.com/fi/product/compare-countries/
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,500
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:
    Seems like a good idea to me.
    There weren’t any details in the article, but expropriation is a dangerous path to tread
    Not clear how it works at all. Also a 500% increase in council tax for empty homes. Disproprortionately affects the poor rather than the rich. And a real issue for people in hospital. Logically also applies to holiday homes as well (otherwise someone goes and stays in it 1 night a year). Interesting.
    It sounds a bit PR Stunt / Populist.

    1 - £1 selling off is more Thatcherite than Thatcher's 50% or 60% discount on Council houses.
    2 - It will be marginal as we have already spent 20 years cracking down on empty homes.
    3 - How do they stop investors striking formal or informal back to back deals? SNP had problems with that, with council houses being sold off to English investors.
    4 - Would they generally not be better pulling them into the social sector as rentals for the people on the waiting list?
    5 - What about the significant % of empty homes that are owned by Councils / HAs?

    It will, however, galvanise the owners of those homes into action.
    1 - These are not in the main council houses AIUI. Edit: I see what you mean. Maybe GeoffW can get his Thatcherite wish by voting SLab ;-)
    2 - 27,000 empty houses is the number quoted.
    3 - Clauses in the contract?
    4 - Yes
    5 - Really? Are there any? Here in Dorset HA homes are like hen's teeth - massive waiting list, no empty homes AFAIK.
    That 27K is almost exactly 1% of all dwellings in Scotland, and about a third of all empty homes.

    I wonder if they got that 27K by rounding down from the stat on page 13

    https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/households/household-estimates/2021

    But this refers to the covid era with delays in processing legalities and so on. On the next page they say "(The spike in the percentage of long-term empty properties in
    2020 may reflect the impact of Covid lockdown restrictions, for example with fewer
    people moving house in that period.)"
    Better data - thank-you.

    Looking at it, Total Empties in Scotland for 2021 is ~88,000 or 3.3%. Exemptions on top of that (eg not yet finished or awaiting demolition) are ~44,500 or 1.7%.

    In England the Total Empties figure for 2022 is 676,500 which for 25 million dwellings would be around 2.5%. These are "defined as empty properties as classified for council tax purposes and include all empty properties liable for council tax and properties that are empty but receive a council tax exemption. "

    The definitions look fairly comparable ie based around Council Tax.

    Scottish Gov breaks down the numbers by short term / long term, but not by ownership.

    The total Long Term empties in Scotland are stated as 43,766, with a definition of 6 months empty. I'm guessing the 27k number is either >12 months empties or private rented sector empties, with Lab ignoring social sector - which would be consistent with their usual policy practice around non-habitable and LLs evicting and so on, where they quiet about how much HAs use Section 21 for example.

    Total empties in Scotland are quoted as 88, 735, which is 3.3%.

    Make of all that what you will.

    Digging into this is a rabbit hole.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,620
    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
    Well @Pagan2 as you know as I encouraged you to to write your excellent header all those months ago, even though I disagreed with it, because I thought you had interesting ideas and you only have to ask someone like @HYUFD what my political leanings are to know that I am both a democrat and a liberal. Even someone like @hyufd with whom I disagree a lot I know would confirm I am both.

    If you don't want to take me up on a bet on those 6 how about I select another 6.

    And if you think we would abandon everything for a ministerial limo don't you think that would be rather a convoluted way of doing it. If that were the objective don't you think it would be easier to pretend to be a Labour or Conservative supported and try and get elected in a safe seat for one of them. Honestly nobody joins the LDs expecting to get into power, ever.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,500

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Presumably because neither of you can talk French !
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,844
    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
    Well @Pagan2 as you know as I encouraged you to to write your excellent header all those months ago, even though I disagreed with it, because I thought you had interesting ideas and you only have to ask someone like @HYUFD what my political leanings are to know that I am both a democrat and a liberal. Even someone like @hyufd with whom I disagree a lot I know would confirm I am both.

    If you don't want to take me up on a bet on those 6 how about I select another 6.

    And if you think we would abandon everything for a ministerial limo don't you think that would be rather a convoluted way of doing it. If that were the objective don't you think it would be easier to pretend to be a Labour or Conservative supported and try and get elected in a safe seat for one of them. Honestly nobody joins the LDs expecting to get into power, ever.
    I did not imply you are a political whore, merely the lib dem hierarchy I would add that and I have no doubt frankly a vote for a lib dem candidate is a vote for someone that will ignore their manifesto.

    Most party members believe, whether tory, labour, lib dem etc. Sadly I think most party members are merely used as footsoldiers for people who frankly will throw their principles out the bus for a whiff of power.

    That is not a reflection on most party members
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited February 2023
    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,500
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:
    Seems like a good idea to me.
    There weren’t any details in the article, but expropriation is a dangerous path to tread
    Not clear how it works at all. Also a 500% increase in council tax for empty homes. Disproprortionately affects the poor rather than the rich. And a real issue for people in hospital. Logically also applies to holiday homes as well (otherwise someone goes and stays in it 1 night a year). Interesting.
    It sounds a bit PR Stunt / Populist.

    1 - £1 selling off is more Thatcherite than Thatcher's 50% or 60% discount on Council houses.
    2 - It will be marginal as we have already spent 20 years cracking down on empty homes.
    3 - How do they stop investors striking formal or informal back to back deals? SNP had problems with that, with council houses being sold off to English investors.
    4 - Would they generally not be better pulling them into the social sector as rentals for the people on the waiting list?
    5 - What about the significant % of empty homes that are owned by Councils / HAs?

    It will, however, galvanise the owners of those homes into action.
    1 - These are not in the main council houses AIUI.
    2 - 27,000 empty houses is the number quoted.
    3 - Clauses in the contract?
    4 - Yes
    5 - Really? Are there any? Here in Dorset HA homes are like hen's teeth - massive waiting list, no empty homes AFAIK.
    27,000 is 1% of the 2.7 million dwellings in Scotland, so that is smallish but I agree significant at the margin. I was expecting a lower number than that. England is about 0.8% on the published numbers.

    The named Scottish Empty Homes website is run by Shelter, and does not contain much detailed data. Generally Shelter data is opaque and ill-defined. From past experience I would want a definition and a second source.

    A long-term empty is I think 12 months or more.

    In England in 2022 there were, with numbers based on "Empty" discounts on Council Tax (which may cause certain category errors - eg no point reporting empty if you still pay full Council Tax on it and get more hassle):

    - 248k long-term empties;
    - 33k were owned by Local Authorities "vacant";
    - 32k owned by Housing Associations under "general needs vacant";
    - 14k owned by Housing Associations under "general needs vacant not available" - things like supported units for elderly. This is I think a sub-category of the larger HA number;
    - Owned by eg Health Authorities does not seem to be collected, but is small.

    So yes social sector empties are significant, though a minority. If LA / HC in Scotland are on top of the number quoted, then that makes it quite a bit higher than the numbers published for England.

    Data is here. You want Live Table 615.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

    Dorset report 5 LA owned LT empties, 160 general HA LT empties, and 83 "vacant not available" HA LT empties. Same live data table. Yes, it looks tight in Dorset.
    Different years - see my post below: 2021 in Scotland, affected by covid delays in legalities.
    Yes - there are huge miniature variations on the numbers which make precise interpretation difficult.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    You're a natural! :)

    You come across exactly as I expected you to, a nice chap.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    I'm already out. I ran for Aberdeenshire Council last May. Had people following my progress, especially as in the early rounds I was beating a Tory for the 3rd seat. PB knew before I did as I wasn't at the count and instead was driving...!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    He doesn't want to believe it exists because it offends against his world view.

    This is pure cognitive dissonance.
    It's pure thinking straight.

    To take a specific example, I could pick a thousand but this one ... the British 'stiff upper lip', aka the enhanced facility of Brits to be stoical in adversity.

    Is this a real thing? Or is it just a saying that oils the wheels of a certain kind of chitchat?
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    You're a natural! :)

    You come across exactly as I expected you to, a nice chap.
    Ta. A lot of comments saying the same. I'm just me. These videos are too long to put on an act.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,500
    edited February 2023

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    I'm already out. I ran for Aberdeenshire Council last May. Had people following my progress, especially as in the early rounds I was beating a Tory for the 3rd seat. PB knew before I did as I wasn't at the count and instead was driving...!
    Tried one of the vids. Good stuff.

    Turns out he's doing a PB-style demographic profile of his audience !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqyjam-_no
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.

    You are already quite a dull person. A retired accountant. What is impressive, in a dull way, is that you somehow manage to be even duller than that

    You should amp up the bisexual “I like polo-players in tight jodhpurs” stuff. It’s your only saving grace
    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.
    He's stuck in a weird kind of Speccie Construct world. I try and tease him out but rarely succeed.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
    I do throw in some Lancastrianisms for effect. Then get comments from America saying "we love your Scottish accent". Erm no.

    Two thirds of my views are non-UK! Which is entertaining. I commented on one video that "I even have people watching in Bangladesh. Hi!!!" and then had a viewer from Bangladesh add a comment!

    Its a funny world this Utuubing. I would subscribe to a SeanT channel doing his version of Whicker's World. Come on @Leon how about it?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 3,916

    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
    Keep going horse, if you keep whinging and wetting your pants about people on the site who don’t hold your views and are a bit punchy then you can get everyone banned and the site will be perfect for you.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,844
    boulay said:

    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
    Keep going horse, if you keep whinging and wetting your pants about people on the site who don’t hold your views and are a bit punchy then you can get everyone banned and the site will be perfect for you.
    Horse in his time has been as punchy as anyone
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    I'm from the North and my first thought was to agree - but what about the Brexit division whereby Scotland and London are on one side and the North on the other?
    I personally think the division is between the English big cities/university ones and the red wall/ middle England.

    London, Brighton, Bristol, Oxford, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool all have more in common with Scotland , for different reasons, than places like the midlands, the rural south or rural Lancashire, I think. Hence all oppose Brexit/vote Left.
    That certainly is the Brexit division, yes. And yet Liverpool v Oxford really doesn't feel like a political identity derby, if you know what I mean.
    I'd say Liverpool is a bit of an outlier. The locals (as opposed to students etc) support Labour like they support their football teams, which is what the Red Wall was like until Brexit.
    I watched a very good doc on Liverpool a while ago and from that I did get the impression of a place unto itself. Only been there once - for the National and stayed in the Adelphi. Didn't meet any working class heroes, but that's probably because I was all expenses paid in VIP with a bunch of City brokers.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Humza Yousuf seriously considering running for SNP leadership. Please do it and win, kill the SNP forever!
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684
    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
    That sound very much like the line that Labour propagandists were putting out at the beginning of the Coalition Government. Is it still the official Labour line?

    And talking about ministerial limousines, how about all those people who switched to Labour/Conservative for that very reason? Starting with Truss, perhaps.....
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    He doesn't want to believe it exists because it offends against his world view.

    This is pure cognitive dissonance.
    It's pure thinking straight.

    To take a specific example, I could pick a thousand but this one ... the British 'stiff upper lip', aka the enhanced facility of Brits to be stoical in adversity.

    Is this a real thing? Or is it just a saying that oils the wheels of a certain kind of chitchat?
    It's a real thing. It's born of our social disease and cynicism, which means when the chips are down it doesn't bother us too much more than the baseline.

    Read "Watching the English" by Kate Fox.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
    I do throw in some Lancastrianisms for effect. Then get comments from America saying "we love your Scottish accent". Erm no.

    Two thirds of my views are non-UK! Which is entertaining. I commented on one video that "I even have people watching in Bangladesh. Hi!!!" and then had a viewer from Bangladesh add a comment!

    Its a funny world this Utuubing. I would subscribe to a SeanT channel doing his version of Whicker's World. Come on @Leon how about it?
    Good luck to you! You're good at it and it looks like you enjoy it.

    Congrats.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    You're a natural! :)

    You come across exactly as I expected you to, a nice chap.
    Hey @CorrectHorseBattery3 how are you doing, mate?

    Hope everything's going well for you.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,844
    ClippP said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
    That sound very much like the line that Labour propagandists were putting out at the beginning of the Coalition Government. Is it still the official Labour line?

    And talking about ministerial limousines, how about all those people who switched to Labour/Conservative for that very reason? Starting with Truss, perhaps.....
    I actually sent an im to kjh about what I said.....I will reproduce it here

    I really wasn't having a go at you there I am just increasingly of the opinion that political parties have become detached with the growth of professional politicians. We have the party members that have something they believe in then the professional politicians that are more interested in being elected than ideology. For example I think no one would see cameron as being out of place in LD, new labour, tory...likewise Starmer or nick Clegg.

    The party was a vehicle to get elected rather than because they believed and that is the issue I have
  • Options
    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Presumably because neither of you can talk French !
    Disdain and disgust for being English is actually very English.

    Orwell identified it as such decades ago.
  • Options
    New thread.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    You are already quite a dull person. A retired accountant. What is impressive, in a dull way, is that you somehow manage to be even duller than that

    You should amp up the bisexual “I like polo-players in tight jodhpurs” stuff. It’s your only saving grace
    No, I like to get beyond the glib, and I'm right - or at least more right than wrong - on this one. 'National character' is largely a nonsense.

    But as it's Friday, and people probably just want to unwind, I won't bang on about it. I don't like to be unnecessarily confrontational. I'm British.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,620
    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    The differences in political culture between Scotland and England are real but not huge, in my opinion, and I think polling on political attitudes (as opposed to party id) back that up. I would say that political culture in Scotland is similar to that in the North of England. In fact the North and South of England are at least as different as England and Scotland in my experience. Semi-serious question: what does the North of England get out of being part of England? Apart ftom the cash, I mean.
    More to the point, what does the South East of England get out of being part of England, apart from higher taxes?

    An independent South East, or at least one with its own Parliament within the UK, could be more like Bavaria or Switzerland
    Right now it would be majority Labour. I somehow don't think you'll be happy with that
    It wouldn't. The Tories and LDs and RefUK combined are still well ahead of Labour in the South East.

    Even in 1997 the home counties mostly stayed Tory in the end
    Erh no they aren't.
    They are.

    Labour is on 40% in the latest Yougov in the South, the Tories and LDs and RefUK are on 51% combined in the South

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/523wfnrggo/TheTimes_VI_230201_W.pdf
    You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".

    You would do better to count the "Don't Knows" in the Tory column, and fantasise that they are going to turn out and save the day. Or perhaps that the aliens will invade and the election will be called off.
    The LD's aren't the opposition to anyone till they get elected ...
    I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
    I suggest you get more than 10 mp's before calling yourself the principal opposition to anyone, jo swinson style hubris at its best.
    I'll revise my advice. If you think I'm a Lib Dem, you need to get yourself a brain, never mind a dictionary.
    It doesn't matter if you are or aren't a lib dem, the fact remains until the ld's actually win seats in an actual election they are the opposition to absolutely no one, they are merely a flea biting an elephants scrotum, full of sound and fury signifying nothing
    The statement was 'You do realise that the LDs are (even now) the principal opposition to the Tories in parts of "the South".'

    If they aren't the principle opposition in parts of the South eg Woking, Wokingham, Guildford, Mole Valley, Wimbledon, SW Surrey, etc, etc, etc who the hell do you think are?
    No one because the LD's won't get elected, opposition implies they have a chance. I suspect at best after the next election the LD's will at best goto double their mp numbers.

    They are only opposition if they have a chance and fortunately there are enough anyone but ld voters, in which I include myself, to prevent an ld win. I would vote for corbyn to keep an lib dem out
    So in the 6 I mentioned do you believe the Tories will hold on to all of those and the LDs not win any of them? Do you want to have a bet on it?

    And why this hatred of LDs? We are generally an inoffensive bunch.
    You are neither liberal nor democratic, your party officials say whatever they need to get elected giving wildly different messages in different constituencies. The one time your party got a sniff of minesterial limo's they abandoned all their so called principles. Your party are political whores.

    As to the 6 you mention no bet I said they might double their mps so you may well gain those 6. Still will make you a total irrelevance and even if you were kingmakers I expect your party to abandon everything for minsterial limousines
    Well @Pagan2 as you know as I encouraged you to to write your excellent header all those months ago, even though I disagreed with it, because I thought you had interesting ideas and you only have to ask someone like @HYUFD what my political leanings are to know that I am both a democrat and a liberal. Even someone like @hyufd with whom I disagree a lot I know would confirm I am both.

    If you don't want to take me up on a bet on those 6 how about I select another 6.

    And if you think we would abandon everything for a ministerial limo don't you think that would be rather a convoluted way of doing it. If that were the objective don't you think it would be easier to pretend to be a Labour or Conservative supported and try and get elected in a safe seat for one of them. Honestly nobody joins the LDs expecting to get into power, ever.
    I did not imply you are a political whore, merely the lib dem hierarchy I would add that and I have no doubt frankly a vote for a lib dem candidate is a vote for someone that will ignore their manifesto.

    Most party members believe, whether tory, labour, lib dem etc. Sadly I think most party members are merely used as footsoldiers for people who frankly will throw their principles out the bus for a whiff of power.

    That is not a reflection on most party members
    I appreciate you didn't mean me personally Pagan. You are far too polite for that. But it is also true for most LDs and I wasn't just a mere foot soldier. Most are honest and believe in what they stand for and I would also say that is also true for Tories, Greens, UKIP, Reform, SNP, Labour, Plaid, etc, etc. It is probably true that Labour and the Tories may attract a few more corrupt individuals because it provides a route to power, but that will be a minority, otherwise they are no different to the rest of us, no matter where we are in the hierarchy.
  • Options
    boulay said:

    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
    Keep going horse, if you keep whinging and wetting your pants about people on the site who don’t hold your views and are a bit punchy then you can get everyone banned and the site will be perfect for you.
    I've got no issue with anyone having opposing views, it is the needless abuse from some I call out.

    HYUFD I totally disagree with but he's a pleasant chap, likewise Richard on certain issues just to give two examples.
  • Options
    A serious wake up call for @theSNP leadership hopefuls. On today’s Westminster poll we would lose every seat we hold in the central belt except mine. As I said earlier the time for shooting the messenger is over. We need a radical rethink.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1626669409686151190

    My Seat Model:

    LAB: 30 (+29)
    SNP: 21 (-27)
    CON: 3 (-3)
    LDM: 5 (+1)

    Changes w/ GE2019.



    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1626562686493372416
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 3,916
    Pagan2 said:

    boulay said:

    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
    Keep going horse, if you keep whinging and wetting your pants about people on the site who don’t hold your views and are a bit punchy then you can get everyone banned and the site will be perfect for you.
    Horse in his time has been as punchy as anyone
    Absolutely, he’s the little shit in the playground who runs up behind someone and trips them up the runs off shouting he’s being bullied. Then runs round the big boys trying to make friends “how are you, you alright?” It’s fucking bollocks.

    It’s an argumentative site full of opinions that vary wildly made beautiful by the varying strength of those opinions, the time of night those opinions are expressed and would be all the poorer if punchier members weren’t here - Malcolm is super punchy and I would leave if his straight talking no-nonsense went because someone found it upsetting (ironically I think Malcolm probably has the most Zen life of anyone on here).

    Leon is super sharp, mad, amusing, annoying, and won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but he posts far more interesting posts than “Tories heading for extinction, you alright friend, stop bullying me”.

    Lucky guy has some alternative views but can be interesting because we want the alternative views.

    BeinDerg X is great because he’s v intelligent and can offer insight and mix it up with being an absolute grinch, well he could until banned.

    Kinabalu doesn’t need defending like a damsel in distress because he’s sorted, he’s sitting in his local in London in his Peakey Blinders cap and centrist dad trainer/shoes and he doesn’t give a monkeys about the harder banter at him, he just raises a wry smile and sips his craft beer.

    Really getting dull this whole bullshit on here with posters trying to shit down what they don’t like. Try mumsnet instead, will shock you on the abuse and the C word is mandatory.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,844
    boulay said:

    Pagan2 said:

    boulay said:

    kjh said:

    Here we go again. How about trying to engage on the content with @kinabalu and not the personal insults because each time you do this it comes over as you losing the argument with him. You seem to lose every time you debate with him which isn't a good look.

    The way Leon abuses @kinabalu constantly is disgusting. @kinabalu is one of the best posters on the site, being actually of the left, giving a good perspective. He's always polite and kind and has looked out for me many a time.

    Despicable.
    Keep going horse, if you keep whinging and wetting your pants about people on the site who don’t hold your views and are a bit punchy then you can get everyone banned and the site will be perfect for you.
    Horse in his time has been as punchy as anyone
    Absolutely, he’s the little shit in the playground who runs up behind someone and trips them up the runs off shouting he’s being bullied. Then runs round the big boys trying to make friends “how are you, you alright?” It’s fucking bollocks.

    It’s an argumentative site full of opinions that vary wildly made beautiful by the varying strength of those opinions, the time of night those opinions are expressed and would be all the poorer if punchier members weren’t here - Malcolm is super punchy and I would leave if his straight talking no-nonsense went because someone found it upsetting (ironically I think Malcolm probably has the most Zen life of anyone on here).

    Leon is super sharp, mad, amusing, annoying, and won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but he posts far more interesting posts than “Tories heading for extinction, you alright friend, stop bullying me”.

    Lucky guy has some alternative views but can be interesting because we want the alternative views.

    BeinDerg X is great because he’s v intelligent and can offer insight and mix it up with being an absolute grinch, well he could until banned.

    Kinabalu doesn’t need defending like a damsel in distress because he’s sorted, he’s sitting in his local in London in his Peakey Blinders cap and centrist dad trainer/shoes and he doesn’t give a monkeys about the harder banter at him, he just raises a wry smile and sips his craft beer.

    Really getting dull this whole bullshit on here with posters trying to shit down what they don’t like. Try mumsnet instead, will shock you on the abuse and the C word is mandatory.
    C word? you mean conservative?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    edited February 2023

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Ah no, that's not what I mean. I am and feel English. I have an English identity if we must. But this is MY English identity and it'll differ from you and many other English people. There is no THE English identity that we all or most of us share. And whatever identity it is it doesn't map to any sort of 'English Character' to which you can assign human characteristics like - well eg my example just now - stoical. That sort of thing is what I'm saying is a nonsense. Specifically that. And it is.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Presumably because neither of you can talk French !
    Disdain and disgust for being English is actually very English.

    Orwell identified it as such decades ago.
    Gilbert and Sullivan beat Orwell to it by the better part of a century. They described in the Mikado:

    "The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own".
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Ah no, that's not what I mean. I am and feel English. I have an English identity if we must. But this is MY English identity and it'll differ from you and many other English people. There is no THE English identity that we all or most of us share. And whatever identity it is it doesn't map to any sort of 'English Character' to which you can assign human characteristics like - well eg my example just now - stoical. That sort of thing is what I'm saying is a nonsense. Specifically that. And it is.
    So you are and feel English but English also doesn't exist.

    Right, got it.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    edited February 2023

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Ah no, that's not what I mean. I am and feel English. I have an English identity if we must. But this is MY English identity and it'll differ from you and many other English people. There is no THE English identity that we all or most of us share. And whatever identity it is it doesn't map to any sort of 'English Character' to which you can assign human characteristics like - well eg my example just now - stoical. That sort of thing is what I'm saying is a nonsense. Specifically that. And it is.
    So you are and feel English but English also doesn't exist.

    Right, got it.
    No, one more time - An "English National Character" doesn't exist.

    But anyway ...
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Ah no, that's not what I mean. I am and feel English. I have an English identity if we must. But this is MY English identity and it'll differ from you and many other English people. There is no THE English identity that we all or most of us share. And whatever identity it is it doesn't map to any sort of 'English Character' to which you can assign human characteristics like - well eg my example just now - stoical. That sort of thing is what I'm saying is a nonsense. Specifically that. And it is.
    So you are and feel English but English also doesn't exist.

    Right, got it.
    No, one more time - An "English National Character" doesn't exist.

    But anyway ...
    You seem to be actually be arguing that not everyone shares the same personality and character traits.

    Well, duh, err.. yeah. That doesn't mean there is an English identity or culture. And you should read that book, because it describes what both you and me have in common despite our very different politics.

    I know you want to change the parameters of the argument to avoid embarrassment, but it would be easier if you just gracefully accepted you are wrong on this.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,406
    boulay said:



    Lucky guy has some alternative views but can be interesting

    :lol:

    Nothing like a good review.

  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,055
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    Size, culture, politics, landscape, architecture, weather, ethnic and religious mix of population, prosperity, these type things can and do differ between countries (and in most cases can change over time within countries to varying degrees), but what there isn't is any such thing as a 'national character'.

    Human characteristics such as brave v cowardly, chatty v introvert, diligent v lazy, aggressive v placid, cruel v kind, dour v fun loving, etc etc cannot meaningfully be applied to nations. It's ok as a bit of fun (although depending, since sometimes there are darker motives) or as lubricant for glibly sophisticated banter, but no more than that.
    The irony here is that if I met you you'd be demonstrably English, and overseas visitors would recognise both you and I as such.

    If what you said was true there would be no national languages, cultures or indeed nations, and there never would have been.
    Ah no, that's not what I mean. I am and feel English. I have an English identity if we must. But this is MY English identity and it'll differ from you and many other English people. There is no THE English identity that we all or most of us share. And whatever identity it is it doesn't map to any sort of 'English Character' to which you can assign human characteristics like - well eg my example just now - stoical. That sort of thing is what I'm saying is a nonsense. Specifically that. And it is.
    So you are and feel English but English also doesn't exist.

    Right, got it.
    No, one more time - An "English National Character" doesn't exist.

    But anyway ...
    If you are conceding that cultural differences are real then what exactly are you denying with that claim?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,195

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
    Definitely better looking then I'd imagined from his posts on here, which is a really weird expectation to have.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,195
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Kate Forbes appears to have traditional right-of-centre values. I would not be averse to voting SNP under her leadership. A Thatcherite independent Scotland when the r-UK is zombified by Starmer's claque would be fine by me.

    Haha. You fear Labour will ruin all the stunning successes of the past 13 years. It's a view, I suppose.
    Actually I'd perhaps not go so far as voting for independence, but a devolved Thatcherite Scotland would be a treat.
    Isn't this unlikely given one of the main ways Scotland differs from England - supplying much of the logic for separation - is being more attuned to a collective as opposed to an individualistic view of society?
    This being political culture, I hasten to stress, not 'national character' - which can't be different because it doesn't exist.
    You genuinely believe there are no differences in national character between, say, the Japanese, the Aboriginal Australians of northern Queensland, the Icelandics, the San Bushmen of Botswana, the Inuit and the Ashkenazi Jews? None at all?

    I get why you ‘have’ to pay lip service to this bullshit, because if you admit it, you admit there are differences between human races. But your discomfort does not stop your supposed belief from being juvenile bullshit
    He doesn't want to believe it exists because it offends against his world view.

    This is pure cognitive dissonance.
    It's pure thinking straight.

    To take a specific example, I could pick a thousand but this one ... the British 'stiff upper lip', aka the enhanced facility of Brits to be stoical in adversity.

    Is this a real thing? Or is it just a saying that oils the wheels of a certain kind of chitchat?
    I thought there was some evidence that many British people stoically stayed at home and died of Covid because they didn't want to be a burden to the NHS during the first wave.

    Culture is definitely a thing that exists in societies and is inherited by children at a young age through example and other social group pressures. This produces something that you can call a national character, but I think it's a bit more amenable to change and less fixed then some would have you believe.
  • Options

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
    Definitely better looking then I'd imagined from his posts on here, which is a really weird expectation to have.
    You could always send him a VM.
  • Options
    After you’ve gone…..

    Nicola Sturgeon's personal ratings have improved significantly since our last poll for @TheScotsman

    Intelligent 78% (+8)
    Strong 77% (+10)
    Genuine 59% (+13)
    Understands ordinary people56% (+6)
    Divisive 56% (=)
    Charismatic 53% (+7)
    Trustworthy 51% (+7)
    Honest 51% (+6)



    https://twitter.com/savanta_uk/status/1626660250127572997
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,195

    Entirely off-topic but I think the problem with me being a YouTuber is that on filming / editing days I am spending too much time looking at myself and listening to my voice. Having monetised I'm now shooting in 4k so more detail to show my increasing grey hairs and already wonky teeth.

    How do politicians cope when they are either on TV or taking pictures of themselves pointing at potholes?

    What’s your channel about? Will you share the name or do you wish to retain your anonymity?

    I watch a lot of YouTube, it’s great when you find a really good channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/@justgetatesla

    Basically I am having fun with my Tesla. Its not total Elon fanboi stuff, have talked about stuff thats good and bad with the car.
    Good luck with the channel mate - there’s obviously demand for Tesla content, you’re building up subscribers quickly! Brave of you to reveal yourself on here :)
    He seems quite normal on there, and even admits to being a "daft sod".
    Definitely better looking then I'd imagined from his posts on here, which is a really weird expectation to have.
    You could always send him a VM.
    I was hoping someone would agree with me and validate my judgement.
This discussion has been closed.