Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
It wasn't spending his time with his family which brought Hancock's downfall.
It was breaching social distancing.
(I did actually get that as an answer in a politics essay once.)
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
If only Steve Kirby had been there to say 'I've seen better Prime Ministers in my fridge.'
(To explain, Kirby once told Michael Atherton he had seen better openers in his fridge.)
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
On the subject of Matt Hancock photos, here he is washing his arse at Glasto...
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
On the subject of Matt Hancock photos, here he is washing his arse at Glasto...
He is definitely part of the midlife crisis brigade.
But you posting that proves my point. He isn't even anybody of importance now, and still people are filming him / sharing it in order to abuse him. All politicians now have to put up with this stuff.
Off topic, but timely: Happy Canada Day to our northern neighbors!
And I don't think they will mind if I mention this story: A few years ago, Canadians were coming down into US shopping malls nearthe border to buy coats. To avoid problems with Canadian customs going back, they would wear an old coat, and discard it at the mall. There were enough Canadians doing this so that the malls began installing containers for the old coats.
Or this one. There is a mixed couple, living down in a condominium on Lake Washington, near me. Today, I expect to see the Canadian flag there, and on Tuesday the American flag.
Finally, I admire the Canadian response to 9/11. The stoppage of air travel stranded many Americans in eastern Canada. Individual Canadians took them in, until the travelers could get where they were going. (I beleive a few Canadians were killed in the attack on the World Trade Center.)
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
If only Steve Kirby had been there to say 'I've seen better Prime Ministers in my fridge.'
(To explain, Kirby once told Michael Atherton he had seen better openers in his fridge.)
Why would you keep openers in your fridge? The beer bottles that need the opener obviously but surely the opener is in a drawer. Australians….
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
Sunak certainly was lucky to get England to play cricket with him in his back garden, though I'm not sure it's wise of him to show off about the size of his estate. They probably all went for a swim afterwards. I'm not sure Chris Jordan would even fit into my back yard.
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
Sunak certainly was lucky to get England to play cricket with him in his back garden, though I'm not sure it's wise of him to show off about the size of his estate. They probably all went for a swim afterwards. I'm not sure Chris Jordan would even fit into my back yard.
It was Downing Street, which by all accounts is quite a small shitty place to actual live (especially after Boris tasteless "remodel").
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
On the subject of Matt Hancock photos, here he is washing his arse at Glasto...
He is definitely part of the midlife crisis brigade.
But you posting that proves my point. He isn't even anybody of importance now, and still people are filming him / sharing it in order to abuse him. All politicians now have to put up with this stuff.
If he’d done a Profumo and turned to a quiet life of expiatory good works he wouldn’t need to put up with stuff, but Hancock is an attention seeking wee twat still addicted to publicity (& almost certainly still politically ambitious) so he does have to put up with stuff, and in fact probably welcomes it.
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
Something from which the current government should take note. They seem totally flat-footed, when they still (unlike Major) have a decent majority and should be looking at the right thing to do.
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
Sunak certainly was lucky to get England to play cricket with him in his back garden, though I'm not sure it's wise of him to show off about the size of his estate. They probably all went for a swim afterwards. I'm not sure Chris Jordan would even fit into my back yard.
It was Downing Street, which by all accounts is quite a small shitty place to actual live (especially after Boris tasteless "remodel").
We don't know that the remodel has been tasteless - we only saw pictures of Lytle's own flat, which is always going to be the most extreme expression of the decorators' tastes.
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
If only Steve Kirby had been there to say 'I've seen better Prime Ministers in my fridge.'
(To explain, Kirby once told Michael Atherton he had seen better openers in his fridge.)
Why would you keep openers in your fridge? The beer bottles that need the opener obviously but surely the opener is in a drawer. Australians….
Saves time. I guess when they want beer, they want it fast.
Or they're too pissed to get from one side of the kitchen to the other.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
Something from which the current government should take note. They seem totally flat-footed, when they still (unlike Major) have a decent majority and should be looking at the right thing to do.
I feel that the Government is run by Case, Sunak and Hunt, probably in that order. I don't think good deeds are high on the agenda. And I don't think 'tacking towards electability' would be such a bad thing - benefitting the electorate is what all Governments functioning in a democracy should do.
Politicians even get abuse when you have a game of backyard cricket...
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden' Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
If only Steve Kirby had been there to say 'I've seen better Prime Ministers in my fridge.'
(To explain, Kirby once told Michael Atherton he had seen better openers in his fridge.)
Why would you keep openers in your fridge? The beer bottles that need the opener obviously but surely the opener is in a drawer. Australians….
Saves time. I guess when they want beer, they want it fast.
Or they're too pissed to get from one side of the kitchen to the other.
Lots of bottle openers are magnetic to fit onto the fridge. Mrs C went to Koeln and brought me one home. And for instance
From an interesting thread on the continuing western support for the Russian arms industry.
I also think that Zet-Chemie GmbH should be fined into bankruptcy. Actions are not moved by preaching, nor abstract principles. They are moved by incentives. The best way to prevent Zet-Chemie etc. from supplying the Russian missile industry is to impose a financial disincentive https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1675128377877856256
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
West Indies aren't going to qualify for the world cup thanks to terrible Scots.
I fear for Windies cricket.
You support the Windies when there is a perfectly good UK side? That's the Tebbit rule not only ignored but positively run over with a steam roller. Excellent.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Irish, Scots, Welsh and umpteen First Nations, plus the French, would like a word in your ear.
Ok then, the second British Civil War, since Wikipedia tells me that the first English Civil War was merely one chapter of the “War of the Three Kingdoms”.
My point is that they were Englishmen (or Brits, if you will), fighting for English rights.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
West Indies aren't going to qualify for the world cup thanks to terrible Scots.
I fear for Windies cricket.
You support the Windies when there is a perfectly good UK side? That's the Tebbit rule not only ignored but positively run over with a steam roller. Excellent.
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes known as the British Civil Wars, were a series of intertwined conflicts fought between 1639 and 1653 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, then separate entities united in a personal union under Charles I. They include the 1639 to 1640 Bishops' Wars, the First and Second English Civil Wars, the Irish Confederate Wars, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652).
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
I prefer to view July 4th as the day we decided we'd much rather have India than America day.
It was part of a great experiment. We sent our religious nutters to America and our criminals to Australia to see how it would work out and it would seem that the nutters are still nutters and the convicts became more civilised.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
As it says the 10%->12%->15%->12%->10% madness was all over and done with in 24 hours and with none of those changes affecting people's mortgages.
What did affect mortgages, ie lower them, was the fall to 6% which happened in the following four months.
Andrew Neil called it "White Wednesday" for years afterward and in many ways it was a positive economic event - indeed, as with June 2016, a sudden enforced devaluation of sterling allowed not only our exporters to benefit but made the UK a great venue for tourists. At a time when raw materials were also falling in price, devaluation didn't impact us too much in terms of inflation.
The problem was the events of September 16th 1992 seared into people's minds the image of a Government no longer in control of events. That's the worst that can happen to any Government (as we saw with Covid) - the perception they are not only not in control of events but are simply reacting to events without any kind of strategic debate or thinking.
The Conservatives, that day, lost their reputation for economic management which they developed in opposition under Thatcher and which stayed throughout her tenure - it was as politically disastrous as the 1967 devaluation had been for Labour.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
I prefer to view July 4th as the day we decided we'd much rather have India than America day.
It was part of a great experiment. We sent our religious nutters to America and our criminals to Australia to see how it would work out and it would seem that the nutters are still nutters and the convicts became more civilised.
As I’ve discovered in reading a bit of American history, those religious nutters you refer to went on to do all the best things.
All the bad things were done by southern Episcopalian gentry and the feudin’ Scots-Irish diaspora.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
There were also two English civil wars before 1603 with the wars of the roses and the war between Stephen and Mathilda.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
I prefer to view July 4th as the day we decided we'd much rather have India than America day.
It was part of a great experiment. We sent our religious nutters to America and our criminals to Australia to see how it would work out and it would seem that the nutters are still nutters and the convicts became more civilised.
I don't know about the latter...Australian's not known for their cultural sophistication and still massive cheats at sport. Can't even be trusted with a piece of sandpaper.
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes known as the British Civil Wars, were a series of intertwined conflicts fought between 1639 and 1653 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, then separate entities united in a personal union under Charles I. They include the 1639 to 1640 Bishops' Wars, the First and Second English Civil Wars, the Irish Confederate Wars, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652).
The War of the Roses used to be called the Civil War. Instead of numbering them, it's perhaps a more elegant solution to refer to the most recent one as *the* war, and then give them a specific name as they drift further into history.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Classic Britain. Central government just can’t help but crush local initiative.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
This morning (the beginning of a long weekend here), I have inexplicably softened toward Rishi.
He’s toothless, hopeless, already yesterday’s man. I no longer need to worry so much about him. Anger is subsiding to indifference.
My ire is starting to turn toward Starmer. I don’t like some of the straws in the wind.
Labour are authoritarian centralisers - we know that, it's nothing new.
Starmer, like Blair, is desperately trying to convince wavering Conservative voters the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-right - in other words, a party for which a typical Conservative voter, disillusioned after 13 years of failure, can vote with confidence.
You might argue all that will mean is a continuity of decline but continuity is important - there aren't enough radical voters out there to make a radical alternative an option. Get them in the tent and walk them to radicalism.
As always, there's policy and there's politics - policy is what you'll do if you get elected, politics is what you do in order to get elected.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
There were also two English civil wars before 1603 with the wars of the roses and the war between Stephen and Mathilda.
I was just including the ones that had generally been described as civil wars. Of course there are plenty of other armed conflicts that could be included over the centuries. Perhaps Simon de Montfort's war is most deserving, as the rebels actually took over the government of the country for a short time.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
There were also two English civil wars before 1603 with the wars of the roses and the war between Stephen and Mathilda.
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
That data looks somewhat contrary to my recollection of 1992. (Perhaps adjusted for some odd future consistency reason?)
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
As it says the 10%->12%->15%->12%->10% madness was all over and done with in 24 hours and with none of those changes affecting people's mortgages.
What did affect mortgages, ie lower them, was the fall to 6% which happened in the following four months.
Andrew Neil called it "White Wednesday" for years afterward and in many ways it was a positive economic event - indeed, as with June 2016, a sudden enforced devaluation of sterling allowed not only our exporters to benefit but made the UK a great venue for tourists. At a time when raw materials were also falling in price, devaluation didn't impact us too much in terms of inflation.
The problem was the events of September 16th 1992 seared into people's minds the image of a Government no longer in control of events. That's the worst that can happen to any Government (as we saw with Covid) - the perception they are not only not in control of events but are simply reacting to events without any kind of strategic debate or thinking.
The Conservatives, that day, lost their reputation for economic management which they developed in opposition under Thatcher and which stayed throughout her tenure - it was as politically disastrous as the 1967 devaluation had been for Labour.
Indeed.
With the extra of seemingly willing for people to lose their homes and jobs by trying to stay in the ERM even at the cost of 15% interest rates.
Its difficult for a government to get credit for an improving economy when it had been so determined to follow the opposite economic strategy.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Not quite sure what you're going on about. I already pointed out that the American War of Independence wasn't "English". I'm sure if you want to you can increase the count of "English civil wars", but trying to include Scottish wars scarcely makes sense!
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
There were also two English civil wars before 1603 with the wars of the roses and the war between Stephen and Mathilda.
***The Barons' Wars have entered the chat***
Well, the Barons' Wars were in the 13th century, and the war between Stephen and Matilda was in the 12th.
It's not hard to unleash a flood of nonsense here.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Not quite sure what you're going on about. I already pointed out that the American War of Independence wasn't "English". I'm sure if you want to you can increase the count of "English civil wars", but trying to include Scottish wars scarcely makes sense!
War doesn’t make sense, Chris, why can’t we all just get along?
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Not quite sure what you're going on about. I already pointed out that the American War of Independence wasn't "English". I'm sure if you want to you can increase the count of "English civil wars", but trying to include Scottish wars scarcely makes sense!
War doesn’t make sense, Chris, why can’t we all just get along?
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Fill in the blank: "The colonists were interested in the rights of *******men"
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Classic Britain. Central government just can’t help but crush local initiative.
That's the problem with BOTH Conservative and Labour parties - they may rail against "the nanny state" but they are its biggest supporters and instigators.
If it's working for the Council without any impact on Services, what's the problem? If this were a private company doing the same, you wouldn't expect Kemi Badenoch to wade in and tell them to stop.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
I live in this council area. I'm not 100% convinced about the 4-day-week theories, but I definitely don't think running a trial of it rises to a level that justifies central government sticking its nose in. If the inhabitants of South Cambridgeshire think the policy is an egregious waste of money we can vote the council out at the next set of local elections.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Fill in the blank: "The colonists were interested in the rights of *******men"
Not enough stars to fit in "heterosexual white cis" ...
This morning (the beginning of a long weekend here), I have inexplicably softened toward Rishi.
He’s toothless, hopeless, already yesterday’s man. I no longer need to worry so much about him. Anger is subsiding to indifference.
My ire is starting to turn toward Starmer. I don’t like some of the straws in the wind.
Labour are authoritarian centralisers - we know that, it's nothing new.
Starmer, like Blair, is desperately trying to convince wavering Conservative voters the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-right - in other words, a party for which a typical Conservative voter, disillusioned after 13 years of failure, can vote with confidence.
You might argue all that will mean is a continuity of decline but continuity is important - there aren't enough radical voters out there to make a radical alternative an option. Get them in the tent and walk them to radicalism.
As always, there's policy and there's politics - policy is what you'll do if you get elected, politics is what you do in order to get elected.
The obvious danger is that Labour decides to offer pale pink Toryism to get elected - and then drifts further towards conservatism afterwards. Already we've got what plans Labour did have being watered down because fiscal responsibility bollocks - not, "this is actually important, so the rich will have to cough up more," but, "no, can't do anything, no money." Except, of course, that there is always enough money somewhere to fund the catastrophic pension triple lock, which will ruin the country if it drags on for long enough. And I think we all know how long the positive noises about house building will survive the advent of a significant bloc of shire counties Labour MPs after the election.
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
Because the war of American Independence deals with the post-1707 UK. The colonists were interested in the rights prevailing in Westminster post-1707. That's not an English but a British civil war.
Fill in the blank: "The colonists were interested in the rights of *******men"
Starting to rain in Spielberg, half an hour before the F1 Sprint. The F2 race in the drizzle was hillarious earlier, too wet for slick tyres but too dry for rain tyres.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
I think that may be a retcon. I've got Major's autobiography and I didn't get that impression. They just f***ed up and spent the rest of the time running from pillar to post firefighting. It wasn't a bad little government - Major had some good instincts about making government publically accountable, Clarke knew how to chancellor - but you can't mess up that badly (ERM) and cope with that level of disagreement (Maastricht) and expect to stay in Government.
I think that the economic work, and the work in Northern Ireland, was absolutely geared towards "doing good" rather than "being electable", and that was clear at the time.
It also set the direction of travel for Blair's most significant policy successes - they didn't commit to Tory spending policy purely to avoid scaring the horses.
The economic work you praise was the complete collapse of the government's economic policy. The government did not intend to crash out of the ERM, even though Tory revisionists laud them for this.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
This morning (the beginning of a long weekend here), I have inexplicably softened toward Rishi.
He’s toothless, hopeless, already yesterday’s man. I no longer need to worry so much about him. Anger is subsiding to indifference.
My ire is starting to turn toward Starmer. I don’t like some of the straws in the wind.
Labour are authoritarian centralisers - we know that, it's nothing new.
Starmer, like Blair, is desperately trying to convince wavering Conservative voters the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-right - in other words, a party for which a typical Conservative voter, disillusioned after 13 years of failure, can vote with confidence.
You might argue all that will mean is a continuity of decline but continuity is important - there aren't enough radical voters out there to make a radical alternative an option. Get them in the tent and walk them to radicalism.
As always, there's policy and there's politics - policy is what you'll do if you get elected, politics is what you do in order to get elected.
The obvious danger is that Labour decides to offer pale pink Toryism to get elected - and then drifts further towards conservatism afterwards. Already we've got what plans Labour did have being watered down because fiscal responsibility bollocks - not, "this is actually important, so the rich will have to cough up more," but, "no, can't do anything, no money." Except, of course, that there is always enough money somewhere to fund the catastrophic pension triple lock, which will ruin the country if it drags on for long enough. And I think we all know how long the positive noises about house building will survive the advent of a significant bloc of shire counties Labour MPs after the election.
So what's the mechanism you think that causes an in-power Labour government to drift right, rather than back to the left? The "bloc of new MPs who want to get reelected and drag the party in their direction" is a possibility. But it didn't work for all those Red Wall Tory MPs, who only got levelling up to the extent it happened to match Johnson's instincts when he was PM, and in general this government has drifted back towards its comfort zone, not towards the centre. So I'm sceptical that Labour in power is likely to be different. (I do think they're likely to show sides of the party that we've seen in the past, like authoritarian and centralising aspects. But those aren't conservatism.)
Why does nobody call the American War of Independence, the Second English Civil War?
Because it wasn't (1) English or (2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
OTOH if you include the pre-1603 civil wars, you need to include the ones in Scotland (and no doubt Wales and Ireland as well). Can't leave them out, e.g. Marian Civil War.
Perhaps there's a clue in the word 'English' as to why you wouldn't include "the ones in Scotland".
If we're talking about civil wars in England alone (although they usually spilled over into at least Wales and Ireland as well) just since 1066 we could mention 1075, 1135, 1187, 1215, 1232, 1264, 1327, 1399, 1413, 1455*, 1642.
And that doesn't even include the major Welsh rebellions of 1282, 1287, 1291 and 1400.
*That could be up to six civil wars, depending on how you reckon it.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
Finance? I guess you can't hedge against hegemony without money...
Rishi should indeed lean into cricket. It’s a million times more believable than his silly football shout-outs.
Alas, too late.
PMs and football always seem to be an achilles heel. Starmer probably be the first one in forever that is genuinely a regular football attendee.
But he's a gooner.
Other Arsenal fans include Piers Morgan and Osama Bin Laden.
#WorstFanBaseEver
Also Spike Lee
Arsenal are fashionable amongst liberal New Yorkers of a certain age, because they are seen as multiracial and chic, partly thanks to the urbane Thierry Henry
In London, a debate on a vote of no-confidence in Churchill’s government was beginning that day. Many Tory as well as Labour MPs had had enough of six months of disaster. The mood was not dissimilar to early May 1940 when Chamberlain fell. The PM himself was tired and frustrated.
How long since we were told we could not countenance a confidence vote while Boris needed to rearrange his paperclips during the pandemic?
This is great but... I want to see some play tomorrow!
You are worried England will collapse to all-out this evening?
My bet is that England will go 100% bazball and end up about 205-7 by close of play. Meaning about 40 minutes play tomorrow. It would be great to see at least one full session.... I daren't even THINK about an England victory
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
French President Emmanuel Macron is postponing his scheduled visit to Germany.
Trying to catch another Elton John concert this weekend?
It was a State Visit as well. That's a lot of spoiled kartoffelsalat
Must be serious
A number of twitter accounts that collect Ukrainian war footage have over the past few days been also posting French riot footage ...its often hard to tell one from the other.
French President Emmanuel Macron is postponing his scheduled visit to Germany.
Trying to catch another Elton John concert this weekend?
It was a State Visit as well. That's a lot of spoiled kartoffelsalat
Must be serious
A number of twitter accounts that collect Ukrainian war footage have over the past few days been also posting French riot footage ...its often hard to tell one from the other.
It’s easy, one is a load of armed racist thugs killing innocent civilians who they consider “lesser” and the other is the Ukrainians v the Russians.
Comments
(I did actually get that as an answer in a politics essay once.)
'Sam Curran sledged me in my garden'
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his cricket skills: "I batted more than anything else. I was lucky that I got to play cricket in my back garden with the England T20 World Cup-winning team.
"I had Chris Jordan bowling at me. Jos Buttler was very nice. Sam Curran on the other hand was giving me quite a lot of jib fielding at point. I was not expecting such heavy sledging in my back garden. But they were great and I loved doing that."
(To explain, Kirby once told Michael Atherton he had seen better openers in his fridge.)
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJXfA7p3/
From a wikipedia article which aligns with what I remember;
"At 10:30 am on 16 September, the British government announced an increase in the base interest rate, from an already high 10%, to 12% to tempt speculators to buy pounds. Despite this and a promise later the same day to raise base rates again to 15%, dealers kept selling pounds, convinced that the government would not keep its promise. By 7:00 pm that evening, Lamont announced Britain would leave the ERM and rates would remain at the new level of 12%; however, on the next day the interest rate was back to 10%"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday)
But you posting that proves my point. He isn't even anybody of importance now, and still people are filming him / sharing it in order to abuse him. All politicians now have to put up with this stuff.
And I don't think they will mind if I mention this story: A few years ago, Canadians were coming down into US shopping malls nearthe border to buy coats. To avoid problems with Canadian customs going back, they would wear an old coat, and discard it at the mall. There were enough Canadians doing this so that the malls began installing containers for the old coats.
Or this one. There is a mixed couple, living down in a condominium on Lake Washington, near me. Today, I expect to see the Canadian flag there, and on Tuesday the American flag.
Finally, I admire the Canadian response to 9/11. The stoppage of air travel stranded many Americans in eastern Canada. Individual Canadians took them in, until the travelers could get where they were going. (I beleive a few Canadians were killed in the attack on the World Trade Center.)
A nice Twitter thread on the first battle of El-Alamein.
https://twitter.com/alan_allport/status/1675101963376119810?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
It’s a million times more believable than his silly football shout-outs.
Alas, too late.
I guess when they want beer, they want it fast.
Or they're too pissed to get from one side of the kitchen to the other.
He’s toothless, hopeless, already yesterday’s man.
I no longer need to worry so much about him. Anger is subsiding to indifference.
My ire is starting to turn toward Starmer.
I don’t like some of the straws in the wind.
https://tankmuseumshop.org/products/tank-museum-bottle-opener-fridge-magnet
Edit: neither, presumably, for the Oz market.
I also think that Zet-Chemie GmbH should be fined into bankruptcy. Actions are not moved by preaching, nor abstract principles. They are moved by incentives. The best way to prevent Zet-Chemie etc. from supplying the Russian missile industry is to impose a financial disincentive
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1675128377877856256
For me, at least.
West Indies aren't going to qualify for the world cup thanks to terrible Scots.
I fear for Windies cricket.
And what the hell was he doing at Murdoch’s summer party?
What we need is sortition.
What did affect mortgages, ie lower them, was the fall to 6% which happened in the following four months.
Edit: As would quite a lot of African nations, too.
My point is that they were Englishmen (or Brits, if you will), fighting for English rights.
(1) English or
(2) civil.
And on top of that because there had already been two English civil wars - one in the 12th century and another in the 17th - or more if you subdivide the civil wars in the 17th century.
Just really sad about West Indies cricket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes known as the British Civil Wars, were a series of intertwined conflicts fought between 1639 and 1653 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, then separate entities united in a personal union under Charles I. They include the 1639 to 1640 Bishops' Wars, the First and Second English Civil Wars, the Irish Confederate Wars, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652).
The problem was the events of September 16th 1992 seared into people's minds the image of a Government no longer in control of events. That's the worst that can happen to any Government (as we saw with Covid) - the perception they are not only not in control of events but are simply reacting to events without any kind of strategic debate or thinking.
The Conservatives, that day, lost their reputation for economic management which they developed in opposition under Thatcher and which stayed throughout her tenure - it was as politically disastrous as the 1967 devaluation had been for Labour.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
All the bad things were done by southern Episcopalian gentry and the feudin’ Scots-Irish diaspora.
Central government just can’t help but crush local initiative.
Starmer, like Blair, is desperately trying to convince wavering Conservative voters the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-right - in other words, a party for which a typical Conservative voter, disillusioned after 13 years of failure, can vote with confidence.
You might argue all that will mean is a continuity of decline but continuity is important - there aren't enough radical voters out there to make a radical alternative an option. Get them in the tent and walk them to radicalism.
As always, there's policy and there's politics - policy is what you'll do if you get elected, politics is what you do in order to get elected.
With the extra of seemingly willing for people to lose their homes and jobs by trying to stay in the ERM even at the cost of 15% interest rates.
Its difficult for a government to get credit for an improving economy when it had been so determined to follow the opposite economic strategy.
It's not hard to unleash a flood of nonsense here.
If it's working for the Council without any impact on Services, what's the problem? If this were a private company doing the same, you wouldn't expect Kemi Badenoch to wade in and tell them to stop.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
Other Arsenal fans include Piers Morgan and Osama Bin Laden.
#WorstFanBaseEver
And that doesn't even include the major Welsh rebellions of 1282, 1287, 1291 and 1400.
*That could be up to six civil wars, depending on how you reckon it.
Arsenal are fashionable amongst liberal New Yorkers of a certain age, because they are seen as multiracial and chic, partly thanks to the urbane Thierry Henry
How long since we were told we could not countenance a confidence vote while Boris needed to rearrange his paperclips during the pandemic?
Trying to catch another Elton John concert this weekend?
Must be serious
Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).