Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
Actual communists? I get confused with some of the European communist parties - they often feel like they mean “socialist”. I sometimes wonder if “communist” is just a cool brand to some.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
What is certainly true is that England could vote to leave the union, and that given the recent history it would not be irrational for E,W and NI to seek to leave Scotland.
It's also true that it takes two to make and keep a marriage, and only one to dissolve it.
It's rational therefore for the E,W and NI position re Scotland to be: you have a second referendum, then we have one too on the same question, and we separate if either votes to do so.
It would also make fantastic politics of the highest order and keep PB going for years.
Precisely my point, and the real point of it would be to stop people to a certain extent from calling frivolous referendums if they know the end result is that to keep the status quo they have to not only rely on their own voters saying stay but the other side too.
I do believe there was a genuine urge to leave on the intial scots independence referendum, I think the case for the second referendum Sturgeon realised that even if called she would be unlikely to win hence the prevarication however it was loss free for her to keep agitating for one. That might change if she felt if granted one the rest of the uk would have a chance to say bye....probably not on the second one however by the time we got to the 5th indy ref in 50 years you might find the rest of the uk losing patience.
Yes. There is a genuine issue here, not least about how to do grown up politics. Groups asserting their self determination rights is one thing; the same groups suddenly discovering that self determination is a two way street is another. Like those comedy characters in Brexit who wanted to stop FOM but had no idea it applied to their right to live in Spain and France.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
Without treading on too many other threads - three recent-ish sci-fi I've enjoyed has been "Station 11", "Calls" and "The Collapse” (“L’Effondrement”).
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
Station 11 is very thought provoking, I recommend it too.
I remember the adverts but never watched it. Everyone always says the 80s was the worst decade for TV dramas which is why I asked the question.
I would have guessed House of Cards was 1990 but if the poster above was correct and it just sneaks in (indeed the pedant in me wants to point out 1990 was part of the 1980s…) then that alone means it was a good decade for TV drama.
I remember the adverts but never watched it. Everyone always says the 80s was the worst decade for TV dramas which is why I asked the question.
I recently sat through a Lovejoy Christmas special on one of the satellite channels, vaguely recalling some warm memories of it from being a kid. I was foolish. I kept thinking “something will happen soon”. It did not.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
I am English and don't want to kick Scotland out, we are one United Kingdom
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
What is certainly true is that England could vote to leave the union, and that given the recent history it would not be irrational for E,W and NI to seek to leave Scotland.
It's also true that it takes two to make and keep a marriage, and only one to dissolve it.
It's rational therefore for the E,W and NI position re Scotland to be: you have a second referendum, then we have one too on the same question, and we separate if either votes to do so.
It would also make fantastic politics of the highest order and keep PB going for years.
Precisely my point, and the real point of it would be to stop people to a certain extent from calling frivolous referendums if they know the end result is that to keep the status quo they have to not only rely on their own voters saying stay but the other side too.
I do believe there was a genuine urge to leave on the intial scots independence referendum, I think the case for the second referendum Sturgeon realised that even if called she would be unlikely to win hence the prevarication however it was loss free for her to keep agitating for one. That might change if she felt if granted one the rest of the uk would have a chance to say bye....probably not on the second one however by the time we got to the 5th indy ref in 50 years you might find the rest of the uk losing patience.
Yes. There is a genuine issue here, not least about how to do grown up politics. Groups asserting their self determination rights is one thing; the same groups suddenly discovering that self determination is a two way street is another. Like those comedy characters in Brexit who wanted to stop FOM but had no idea it applied to their right to live in Spain and France.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
Quite possibly, I am all for self determination, as you say though that has to go both ways. Any referendum whether scots independence or brexit has an impact regardless of who wins. My proposal that you have dual referendums is more to make the side calling for it really think about whether they want to call it.
Would Cameron have called the brexit referendum if he thought the rest of the EU might expel us?
Would sturgeon and the snp have been so avid for a second independence referendum if they thought the uk might say actually go do you own thing?
It just seems one sided to me that only one side gets to choose if the arrangement continues. It should need to yes's
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
I am English and don't want to kick Scotland out, we are one United Kingdom
It may have escaped your notice that you are one out of about 60,000,000. Others might not feel the same way
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
You make Austrian communists sound like UK Lib Dems!
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
One problem with your proposal is that it would create an incentive for those who want Scottish independence to make Scotland as unpopular and annoying as possible for the rest of the UK.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
I am English and don't want to kick Scotland out, we are one United Kingdom
It may have escaped your notice that you are one out of about 60,000,000. Others might not feel the same way
I don’t want to “kick” Scotland “out” but I do want to metaphorically shake it by the hand as it wonders off into the sunset to find its own way in the world.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
One problem with your proposal is that it would create an incentive for those who want Scottish independence to make Scotland as unpopular and annoying as possible for the rest of the UK.
Listening to some on here I thought Scotland was already as unpopular and annoying as possible.
Would Cameron have called the brexit referendum if he thought the rest of the EU might expel us?
Would sturgeon and the snp have been so avid for a second independence referendum if they thought the uk might say actually go do you own thing?
Cameron was way overconfident about the outcome anyway; he thought the UK would vote to remain and I bet he'd have thought the EU wouldn't chuck us out either.
The SNP want to leave -- they'd love another referendum which made it even trickier for 'stay' to win. The reason they're wary about having another one is because they're worried they might *lose*, not that they might *win*.
Generally your proposal seems to me to make the side that's already going to cautious about wanting a referendum even more cautious, and make the side that wants a referendum more likely to want one. I don't inherently disagree with the principle behind it, but I don't agree with your projection of its effects.
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
You make Austrian communists sound like UK Lib Dems!
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
I believe - an observation really - that SKS has to date been seriously underestimated as a politician, most notably by @bigjohnowls himself. If you don't underestimate him that makes you a fan, I guess.
I apologise for making a flip remark which you took seriously. But yes, probably true.
Fair. I'm not sure how much to value a skilled politician, as plenty skilled politicians have done stuff I don't agree with or have values I don't share. But I didn't choose this particular battleground.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
"In 2020, a poll by Panelbase showed that 49% of English voters supported English independence, excluding "don't knows". 34% were in favour of English independence, 36% against and 30% didn't know.[15]"
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
"The fundamental differences between Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon ....................................................................................................................... What all of the above tells us is that if we are going to win independence, Yousaf either has to be replaced or he has to (at the very least) reverse course by appointing his internal rivals to senior positions in government and by reintroducing a credible plan for winning independence. The latter course of action is so improbable that it's safe to assume he would only do it if he felt his leadership was under imminent threat. So from our own point of view, the conclusion is the same either way - if we're serious about independence in anything like the foreseeable future, we need to press for fresh leadership."
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
One problem with your proposal is that it would create an incentive for those who want Scottish independence to make Scotland as unpopular and annoying as possible for the rest of the UK.
You mean continuing their current strategy? How could we tell the difference?
Brideshead Revisited. Edge of Darkness. The Singing Detective. Boys from the Blackstuff.
Agree with all of those. I would also put in an honourable mention for
Harry's Game The Monocled Mutineer
and of course Inspector Morse which started in 1987
I've been rewatching Morse after only really seeing it as a child. Thaw's acting is masterful.
Certain episodes date badly, but it's really worth a streaming watch without adverts.
I recently read the first novel 'Last Bus to Woodstock'. The attitudes to women frequently expressed in it are shockingly awful.
By the characters explicitly, or also implicitly by the author? I've never read one.
From memory there is a lot of discussion by various characters about the extent to which the raped murder-victim was herself to blame (dressing provocatively. leading men on, etc.). Nothing in the narrative challenged those characters' views.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
"In 2020, a poll by Panelbase showed that 49% of English voters supported English independence, excluding "don't knows". 34% were in favour of English independence, 36% against and 30% didn't know.[15]"
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
Just mulling over today's highlight, the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly of Diane Abbot's career.
I would love to have heard the discussions in the Observer office about the pros and cons of publishing her letter.
Presumably they must have known that publishing it would spell the end for Abbott? Did they argue over whether they had any responsibility to protect her from herself? Did they publish it gleefully?
They don't seem to have splashed the 'story' of the letter before the Twitter storm erupted - maybe they didn't spot the significance and it was just approved by a junior editor?
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
Just mulling over today's highlight, the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly of Diane Abbot's career.
I would love to have heard the discussions in the Observer office about the pros and cons of publishing her letter.
Presumably they must have known that publishing it would spell the end for Abbott? Did they argue over whether they had any responsibility to protect her from herself? Did they publish it gleefully?
They don't seem to have splashed the 'story' of the letter before the Twitter storm erupted - maybe they didn't spot the significance and it was just approved by a junior editor?
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
"In 2020, a poll by Panelbase showed that 49% of English voters supported English independence, excluding "don't knows". 34% were in favour of English independence, 36% against and 30% didn't know.[15]"
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
So in other words even on that poll most English voters oppose English independence.
When you add an English Parliament within the UK however as the polling shows that has often got over 50% or even over 60% support on the same basis as Wales, Scotland and NI have.
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
the world wars were 70 years ago just about everyone old enough to take part is dead....when do you consider this debt ends? Or can we never say to them leave because history?
Just mulling over today's highlight, the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly of Diane Abbot's career.
I would love to have heard the discussions in the Observer office about the pros and cons of publishing her letter.
Presumably they must have known that publishing it would spell the end for Abbott? Did they argue over whether they had any responsibility to protect her from herself? Did they publish it gleefully?
They don't seem to have splashed the 'story' of the letter before the Twitter storm erupted - maybe they didn't spot the significance and it was just approved by a junior editor?
I will be interested to see what emerges.
Perhaps they also thought nothing of it.
If it was simply approved by one junior editor then yes, that's possible, maybe even likely.
But since the letter was in response to an article in last week's Observer outlining how racism affects many different groups I suspect the Observer editorial team as a whole would recognise the sheer awfulness of Abbott's comments.
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
You make Austrian communists sound like UK Lib Dems!
Winning Here!
We will fill the potholes with the ground down bones of the bourgeoisie
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
You make Austrian communists sound like UK Lib Dems!
Winning Here!
We will fill the potholes with the ground down bones of the bourgeoisie
You'll need to pad it out with mealy bone and chippings. The bourgeoisie have a fat-rich diet and their splintered bones are spindly and fragile. The proletariat have more robust skeletons and would provide a better foundation, but that will have to wait for Phase 2.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
"In 2020, a poll by Panelbase showed that 49% of English voters supported English independence, excluding "don't knows". 34% were in favour of English independence, 36% against and 30% didn't know.[15]"
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
Who cares about 'voting Scotland out' ? I just don't think any significant part of the population in England is interested in this issue at all.
Has no PBer (besides yours truly) noted the direct connection, between "Star Trek: Voyager" and OGH's most famous wager?
Yes. Voyager to Jeri Ryan to her husband's BDSM desires to the divorce to his aborted senate run to Obama being chosen to replace him to Obama's senate win to the Obama presidency which OGH tipped at 50-1
Correct, except that Obama did NOT replace JR's ex.
Instead, they were both candidates for the Democratic nomination for US Senate. With Seven of Nine's former husband being self-financing and in the lead among Dem hopefuls . . . until that is, he dropped out of the race, due to the sex scandal . . . which hugely benefited Obama and aided him in securing the Dem nomination . . . which led to his election to US Senate . . . and the rest, as they say, is history . . .
That’s reminded me by some obscure method of A Very Peculiar Practice which was excellent. And by way of Barbara Flynn, The Beiderbecke Tapes, another good un.
Reading Tony Benn's diaries. He matter-of-factly reports that while visiting the US in his capacity as a cabinet minister in April 1970 he appeared on the David Frost Show. Fellow guests: Noel Coward, Lulu, and the bloke who wrote "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask". A more unlikely guest list it is difficult to imagine. I wonder if there is a recording of it somewhere?
Reading Tony Benn's diaries. He matter-of-factly reports that while visiting the US in his capacity as a cabinet minister in April 1970 he appeared on the David Frost Show. Fellow guests: Noel Coward, Lulu, and the bloke who wrote "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask". A more unlikely guest list it is difficult to imagine. I wonder if there is a recording of it somewhere?
Surprised he got let in the country. Trump wouldn't have put up with it
Reading Tony Benn's diaries. He matter-of-factly reports that while visiting the US in his capacity as a cabinet minister in April 1970 he appeared on the David Frost Show. Fellow guests: Noel Coward, Lulu, and the bloke who wrote "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask". A more unlikely guest list it is difficult to imagine. I wonder if there is a recording of it somewhere?
Surprised he got let in the country. Trump wouldn't have put up with it
At that stage of his career Benn was an up and coming technology minister. Had extensive talks with members of the Nixon Administration. Although of the Left still pretty mainstream. The gleam in the eye had yet to glisten.
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
That seems like an odd guess to me. In an election, you concentrate your campaigning on the marginal that can swing the result, not the safe seat whose outcome is already known. Similarly in this hypothetical almost all the campaigning resources would be concentrated on Scotland, because it might quite plausibly vote 'out', and rest-of-UK would get the equivalent of a few party political broadcasts and maybe a leafleting round, because there is very little chance it would vote to kick Scotland out. (Now if we were talking Northern Ireland that would be a different story...)
I have suggested before that if the scots want independence they are holding the referendum the wrong side of the border. I think you underestimate how many would vote to give scotland it's freedom
"In 2020, a poll by Panelbase showed that 49% of English voters supported English independence, excluding "don't knows". 34% were in favour of English independence, 36% against and 30% didn't know.[15]"
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
Who cares about 'voting Scotland out' ? I just don't think any significant part of the population in England is interested in this issue at all.
If voting out Scotland was popular you'd expect to see an openly pro-English independence winning votes... The English Democrats received 1987 votes at the last general election.
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
You make Austrian communists sound like UK Lib Dems!
Winning Here!
We will fill the potholes with the ground down bones of the bourgeoisie
You'll need to pad it out with mealy bone and chippings. The bourgeoisie have a fat-rich diet and their splintered bones are spindly and fragile. The proletariat have more robust skeletons and would provide a better foundation, but that will have to wait for Phase 2.
Getting a disproportionate amount of your calories from fat wouldn't result in bone fragility. Getting a disproportionate amount of your calories from sugar *could* result in more fragile bones.
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
Nope she wisely used the money to deal with the much need transition in the British economy away from heavy industry. In a globalised market it was inevitable it would happen and she made good use of the oil money ensuring it happened successfully in this country.
Question: "How many states did George HW Bush win at the 1992 US presidential election?"
Answer: "In the 1992 US presidential election, George H.W. Bush, the incumbent president and Republican candidate, won 18 states and the District of Columbia, for a total of 168 electoral votes.
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its grisly ritual?
I don’t know much about the 1980s. When I come across eighties things I find the music trend for keyboards and the awful bleached frizzy hair styles off putting.
There’s a couple of things I liked so much I would happily recommend to anyone who havn’t seen them. Reilly Ace Of Spies and Tutti Frutti. Wasn’t the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes made in the eighties?
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its grisly ritual?
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its grisly ritual?
I have always credited Lady Thatcher for pressing the right buttons that had to be pressed, but it’s led me to a completely different view than yours, where she deliberately and had to press the high unemployment button. Inflation and Union power being the reason for government policy to deliberately manufacture high unemployment.
Would high unemployment not greatly help to reduce inflation in the way manufacturing economies worked in the 1980s? A recession should help reduce inflation too, even today? Would higher unemployment weaken Union power, that weakness drive down wage settlements?
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its grisly ritual?
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its grisly ritual?
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point'b
In other words, they started with the stories and just didn't draw any lines about different races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - the Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
"In other words, they started with the stories"
And I'd argue that's exactly what Picard S2 did. You are just so anti-woke that you cannot accept that the story was *better* than that in S3 - or at least, it's fair for someone to think that. Because your pathetic hatred of anything you see as wokism trumps everything. (And of course, the definition of 'woke' varies from person to person anyway.)
S3 started not with stories, but with: "How can we fit in as much fluff that will make the fans hard with excitement?"
As for consequences: yes, Starfleet *not* giving the cure to the link was a consequence - but as far as I'm aware, it was just invented for this season, halfway through. That's not a long-term consequence of something known about in another show; a tit-bit left hanging. It was also badly done: the main characters did not *discover* it; they were told it by the bad guy Vadic. Boom: revealed. Boom: solved, within a handful of episodes.
Deaths are also now consequence-free - and this is a complaint about the whole three series, where I think three characters come back from the dead. Because if the fans like them, the fans must have them.
What was S3's story? The enemies were old, staid and boring - they'd been seen, and beaten, before. Yet again, the crisis was one that affected the whole galaxy, and only the crew could save everyone. S2's plot was boringly similar, but at least the antagonist and the motivation were different.
I thought S2 was amazing and exciting TV in places - admittedly, it was patchy. S3 was just watching geriatrics do another turn for the fans.
I don’t know much about the 1980s. When I come across eighties things I find the music trend for keyboards and the awful bleached frizzy hair styles off putting.
There’s a couple of things I liked so much I would happily recommend to anyone who havn’t seen them. Reilly Ace Of Spies and Tutti Frutti. Wasn’t the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes made in the eighties?
80s and 90s. Really really fell in quality towards the end of its run and Brett was clearly in poor health towards the end.
Reilly Ace of Spies is tremendous. Fabulous cast too. Thames at its best.
That’s reminded me by some obscure method of A Very Peculiar Practice which was excellent. And by way of Barbara Flynn, The Beiderbecke Tapes, another good un.
Anything by Alan Plater is usually top notch. The Beiderbecke trilogy was pretty good.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
Interesting to get your input on this, thanks.
However, perhaps this is driven by some perceived political advantage for the SG in losing the case?
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
Hill Street Blues I would say was the first to really do that. It had some superb writing.
In general in a union of countries (as a marriage) if either country wishes to end the union it should. However we should remember that Scottish troops suffered terrible casualties in the world wars, especially the first, because being regarded as braver than the English they were usually sent into battle first. Therefore I think it would be wrong to kick them out of the union, or force them to stay in if they want to leave. Never mind the oil, they were just lucky most of it was in their waters, their blood demands respect.
They weren't that lucky with the oil since Thatcher squandered most of the revenue on keeping 3 million unemployed.
Nope she wisely used the money to deal with the much need transition in the British economy away from heavy industry. In a globalised market it was inevitable it would happen and she made good use of the oil money ensuring it happened successfully in this country.
I'd take issue with wisely - which implies she didn't make a whole load of costly mistakes along the way. But then again so did all her predecessors, and left a bunch of structural problems unaddressed which she had a crack at.
Also she left a number of new structural problems for her successors.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
Interesting to get your input on this, thanks.
However, perhaps this is driven by some perceived political advantage for the SG in losing the case?
It is being driven by the fact that the continuity candidate cannot be seen to have abandoned every aspect of Nicola's government in the first week or so. We have already seen the bottle scheme effectively abandoned, the dropping of no fishing areas, a change of position on north sea licences, etc. etc.
Pretty much all of this was the Green tail wagging the dog and most SNP members will be happy with it but what the Greens really care about, way above all that namby pamby ecology stuff, is gender politics. If Yousless had not done this the coalition with the Greens would have ended which might have been problematic given the risk of defections etc.
A cynic might of course point out that May was willing to buy the DUP with £1bn to stay in power so Yousless is getting his support on the cheap.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
A good response to a good header, though I've no idea whether you're right. (Did you predict spider woman's ruling correctly ?) The only thing I take slight issue with in the header is the Nixon comparison, which is both inaccurate and hyperbolic.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
A good response to a good header, though I've no idea whether you're right. (Did you predict spider woman's ruling correctly ?) The only thing I take slight issue with in the header is the Nixon comparison, which is both inaccurate and hyperbolic.
I am guessing you mean Lady Hale? The Court was much more unpredictable under her and much more political. I think I called the Boris prorogation decision wrong, for example, but that is because it was a political decision, not a legal one.
Either that or there has been some Marvel related litigation that I have missed.
My favourite non-cartoon tv show in the 80s, that I watched in the 80s (I was born in 78) was Fame
The BBC's adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardobe and sequels was also good (did it begin in the 80's?). Dated looking now - they should tart it up digitally and re-release it.
Sudan violence: UK help for Britons stuck in Sudan 'severely limited' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65370357 ...Alicia Kearns, conservative MP and chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said she expected there were "well over a thousand" British nationals who wanted to be evacuated from Sudan. She urged the government to communicate regularly with those people and said the limited amount of contact so far "would suggest that no lessons have been learnt since Afghanistan". However, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that getting British nationals out of Sudan was proving "enormously difficult"...
This sounds like quite a big mess. The estimate is that there are around a thousand British families there, so several thousand people.
Sudan violence: UK help for Britons stuck in Sudan 'severely limited' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65370357 ...Alicia Kearns, conservative MP and chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said she expected there were "well over a thousand" British nationals who wanted to be evacuated from Sudan. She urged the government to communicate regularly with those people and said the limited amount of contact so far "would suggest that no lessons have been learnt since Afghanistan". However, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that getting British nationals out of Sudan was proving "enormously difficult"...
This sounds like quite a big mess. The estimate is that there are around a thousand British families there, so several thousand people.
What the hell were 1,000 people doing with their families in the Sudan? I mean, it was not exactly a nice place before this having had a violent civil war for many years. I can see international aid agencies of various sorts being there but families? Bonkers.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
A good response to a good header, though I've no idea whether you're right. (Did you predict spider woman's ruling correctly ?) The only thing I take slight issue with in the header is the Nixon comparison, which is both inaccurate and hyperbolic.
I am guessing you mean Lady Hale? The Court was much more unpredictable under her and much more political. I think I called the Boris prorogation decision wrong, for example, but that is because it was a political decision, not a legal one.
Either that or there has been some Marvel related litigation that I have missed.
Fair point. Is this not also something of a political decision too, though ? Though you're probably right that will be determined by the inclinations of the court more than the nature of the case.
The conservatism of the Supreme Court under Lord Reed means that the Court tends to focus on the actual words of the statute before it rather than any broader, policy based, approach. The first question is whether or not s35 applies, that is does Westminster have the legal authority to issue the s35 order? The answer to that is going to be yes.
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
Interesting to get your input on this, thanks.
However, perhaps this is driven by some perceived political advantage for the SG in losing the case?
It is being driven by the fact that the continuity candidate cannot be seen to have abandoned every aspect of Nicola's government in the first week or so. We have already seen the bottle scheme effectively abandoned, the dropping of no fishing areas, a change of position on north sea licences, etc. etc.
Pretty much all of this was the Green tail wagging the dog and most SNP members will be happy with it but what the Greens really care about, way above all that namby pamby ecology stuff, is gender politics. If Yousless had not done this the coalition with the Greens would have ended which might have been problematic given the risk of defections etc.
A cynic might of course point out that May was willing to buy the DUP with £1bn to stay in power so Yousless is getting his support on the cheap.
I think that the pursuit of these issues by 'green' parties actually promotes scepticism about climate change. If they are really wanting to save the environment it is surely counter productive for them. People can see using their common sense that 'equal rights' and 'equity' have nothing at all to do with reducing global warming.
Sudan violence: UK help for Britons stuck in Sudan 'severely limited' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65370357 ...Alicia Kearns, conservative MP and chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said she expected there were "well over a thousand" British nationals who wanted to be evacuated from Sudan. She urged the government to communicate regularly with those people and said the limited amount of contact so far "would suggest that no lessons have been learnt since Afghanistan". However, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that getting British nationals out of Sudan was proving "enormously difficult"...
This sounds like quite a big mess. The estimate is that there are around a thousand British families there, so several thousand people.
What the hell were 1,000 people doing with their families in the Sudan? I mean, it was not exactly a nice place before this having had a violent civil war for many years. I can see international aid agencies of various sorts being there but families? Bonkers.
will be families of families who have immigrated and have dual nationality I suspect.
Comments
Here is a guess: If a Scots Ref2 were conducted simultaneously both in Scotland and in rUK the campaigns would be fascinating, with Scots travelling in trainloads to England to ask us to vote Stay, and a 70%+ vote in each to remain UK, killing the matter dead.
Yes Minister
Also, I fully endorse the view that the best way to solve a problem is to have a beer or three over lunch to warm up the brain.
Would Cameron have called the brexit referendum if he thought the rest of the EU might expel us?
Would sturgeon and the snp have been so avid for a second independence referendum if they thought the uk might say actually go do you own thing?
It just seems one sided to me that only one side gets to choose if the arrangement continues. It should need to yes's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence#UK-wide_polling
The SNP want to leave -- they'd love another referendum which made it even trickier for 'stay' to win. The reason they're wary about having another one is because they're worried they might *lose*, not that they might *win*.
Generally your proposal seems to me to make the side that's already going to cautious about wanting a referendum even more cautious, and make the side that wants a referendum more likely to want one. I don't inherently disagree with the principle behind it, but I don't agree with your projection of its effects.
source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_independence#:~:text=In 2020, a poll by,30% didn't know.
Thats for english independence, havent found a poll of non scots and support for scots independence but I would guess a lot of those supporting english independence would be voting scotland out
.......................................................................................................................
What all of the above tells us is that if we are going to win independence, Yousaf either has to be replaced or he has to (at the very least) reverse course by appointing his internal rivals to senior positions in government and by reintroducing a credible plan for winning independence. The latter course of action is so improbable that it's safe to assume he would only do it if he felt his leadership was under imminent threat. So from our own point of view, the conclusion is the same either way - if we're serious about independence in anything like the foreseeable future, we need to press for fresh leadership."
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/
Yuk. Just yuk.
Just watching the rerun of Sophie Ridge, I wonder if Dowden leaves a trail when he leaves the studio....
I would love to have heard the discussions in the Observer office about the pros and cons of publishing her letter.
Presumably they must have known that publishing it would spell the end for Abbott? Did they argue over whether they had any responsibility to protect her from herself? Did they publish it gleefully?
They don't seem to have splashed the 'story' of the letter before the Twitter storm erupted - maybe they didn't spot the significance and it was just approved by a junior editor?
I will be interested to see what emerges.
When you add an English Parliament within the UK however as the polling shows that has often got over 50% or even over 60% support on the same basis as Wales, Scotland and NI have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_independence#:~:text=In 2020, a poll by,30% didn't know
But since the letter was in response to an article in last week's Observer outlining how racism affects many different groups I suspect the Observer editorial team as a whole would recognise the sheer awfulness of Abbott's comments.
High court found electrical company had not proved man was drunk after he was seen drinking beer, wine and brandy at lunch
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/23/spanish-firm-wrong-to-fire-electrician-for-drinking-alcohol-during-working-day-court-rules
Instead, they were both candidates for the Democratic nomination for US Senate. With Seven of Nine's former husband being self-financing and in the lead among Dem hopefuls . . . until that is, he dropped out of the race, due to the sex scandal . . . which hugely benefited Obama and aided him in securing the Dem nomination . . . which led to his election to US Senate . . . and the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Expect changes in the way people access knowledge, relate to knowledge and think about themselves"
https://www.economist.com/essay/2023/04/20/how-ai-could-change-computing-culture-and-the-course-of-history
Knowledge? I'm just a little sceptical.
And by way of Barbara Flynn, The Beiderbecke Tapes, another good un.
A more unlikely guest list it is difficult to imagine.
I wonder if there is a recording of it
somewhere?
Trump wouldn't have put up with it
The English Democrats received 1987 votes at the last general election.
+ A Very British Coup
A good era for police procedurals.
Mother Love
Pee Wee Herman was too pure to live.
Question: "How many states did George HW Bush win at the 1992 US presidential election?"
Answer: "In the 1992 US presidential election, George H.W. Bush, the incumbent president and Republican candidate, won 18 states and the District of Columbia, for a total of 168 electoral votes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJchseAmfmw
There’s a couple of things I liked so much I would happily recommend to anyone who havn’t seen them. Reilly Ace Of Spies and Tutti Frutti. Wasn’t the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes made in the eighties?
Would high unemployment not greatly help to reduce inflation in the way manufacturing economies worked in the 1980s? A recession should help reduce inflation too, even today? Would higher unemployment weaken Union power, that weakness drive down wage settlements?
What it doesn't cover is short or medium term cyclical unemployment.
See e.g. here.
http://faculty.washington.edu/ezivot/econ301/301l5_1.htm
(It's not a very useful concept in practice because we can't estimate it with any great precision and it is always changing as the economy does).
And I'd argue that's exactly what Picard S2 did. You are just so anti-woke that you cannot accept that the story was *better* than that in S3 - or at least, it's fair for someone to think that. Because your pathetic hatred of anything you see as wokism trumps everything. (And of course, the definition of 'woke' varies from person to person anyway.)
S3 started not with stories, but with: "How can we fit in as much fluff that will make the fans hard with excitement?"
As for consequences: yes, Starfleet *not* giving the cure to the link was a consequence - but as far as I'm aware, it was just invented for this season, halfway through. That's not a long-term consequence of something known about in another show; a tit-bit left hanging. It was also badly done: the main characters did not *discover* it; they were told it by the bad guy Vadic. Boom: revealed. Boom: solved, within a handful of episodes.
Deaths are also now consequence-free - and this is a complaint about the whole three series, where I think three characters come back from the dead. Because if the fans like them, the fans must have them.
What was S3's story? The enemies were old, staid and boring - they'd been seen, and beaten, before. Yet again, the crisis was one that affected the whole galaxy, and only the crew could save everyone. S2's plot was boringly similar, but at least the antagonist and the motivation were different.
I thought S2 was amazing and exciting TV in places - admittedly, it was patchy. S3 was just watching geriatrics do another turn for the fans.
Reilly Ace of Spies is tremendous. Fabulous cast too. Thames at its best.
* &
The second question is whether Westminster have exercised that power reasonably. I slightly disagree with @Cyclefree's piece in suggesting the bar will be a high one for Westminster. Rather, in my view, the bar is a high one for the Scottish government who will have to show Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is no that reasonable government acting in good faith could have come to such a conclusion. The problem with that is that the Equality Commission have already written a report explaining how the GRR bill does change the Equality Act and how this potentially causes problems in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. To me, this puts Westminster in an almost unassailable position.
The UK government has indicated that it is minded to amend the Equality Act to make it clear that sex is genetic rather than gender based. If they do that the arguments might change somewhat and the uncertainty that the current GRR bill creates may be resolved. But as things stand I am with those that say the SG is throwing its money away on a fairly hopeless case.
Further evidence, should it be required, that this government looks after the interests of capital not ordinary working people.
However, perhaps this is driven by some perceived political advantage for the SG in losing the case?
But then again so did all her predecessors, and left a bunch of structural problems unaddressed which she had a crack at.
Also she left a number of new structural problems for her successors.
Pretty much all of this was the Green tail wagging the dog and most SNP members will be happy with it but what the Greens really care about, way above all that namby pamby ecology stuff, is gender politics. If Yousless had not done this the coalition with the Greens would have ended which might have been problematic given the risk of defections etc.
A cynic might of course point out that May was willing to buy the DUP with £1bn to stay in power so Yousless is getting his support on the cheap.
(Did you predict spider woman's ruling correctly ?)
The only thing I take slight issue with in the header is the Nixon comparison, which is both inaccurate and hyperbolic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/23/opinion/guns-shootings-stand-your-ground.html
Either that or there has been some Marvel related litigation that I have missed.
The BBC's adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardobe and sequels was also good (did it begin in the 80's?). Dated looking now - they should tart it up digitally and re-release it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65370357
...Alicia Kearns, conservative MP and chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said she expected there were "well over a thousand" British nationals who wanted to be evacuated from Sudan.
She urged the government to communicate regularly with those people and said the limited amount of contact so far "would suggest that no lessons have been learnt since Afghanistan".
However, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that getting British nationals out of Sudan was proving "enormously difficult"...
This sounds like quite a big mess. The estimate is that there are around a thousand British families there, so several thousand people.
Is this not also something of a political decision too, though ?
Though you're probably right that will be determined by the inclinations of the court more than the nature of the case.
People can see using their common sense that 'equal rights' and 'equity' have nothing at all to do with reducing global warming.