Wtf I get a letter when I get home I am legally obliged to register to vote
Even though I dont plan on voting for any politicians because they are all words thats start with the same letter as cauliflower
Er, genuinely surprised this is news to you. It's been the law for many years.
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
And now has a far right government. All those lefties who shrug at the dinghy people and try to scupper ANY scheme to stall them could profitably look at what happened in Italy
How far righty is it, though, actually?
Modern definition seems to be about words/language and saying Trumpy stuff. Not actually beating up opponents, locking up judges, censoring the press, locking up minorities, summary executions and shootings, and militarising etc.
In fact, the one nation I can think of that is actually doing a little bit of that is Modi's India. China is doing almost all of it.
A fair point. Meloni is no Mussolini. She’s more of a trad Christian Democrat with the odd fascist gesture
The principle is good tho. If you lose control of your borders the voters will vote further and further right until they elect a government prepared to do drastic things
Unless I've missed it not much love for Robbie Robertson on here then? He'd have been a PB sort of icon, I'd have thought. I pulled into Nazareth ...
A lot from me, but he gets billing about 30 places below BBC sitcom guy
They covered it on the Today prog at least. I was sad to hear he'd died. Long time ago now but I had a real 'Band' phase.
All those years ago, I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Robbie and his mates spent hours throwing around ideas for the group's name and settled on "The Band".
The The - best band name ever!
It's not though - even when I first heard it via the some bizzare album I didn't think it was a good name. It's 'almost', and that's the way the tracks are too.
Uncertain Smile is a masterpiece
I agree, and I'd rather forgotten it. You must like the Tindersticks if you like that?
And now has a far right government. All those lefties who shrug at the dinghy people and try to scupper ANY scheme to stall them could profitably look at what happened in Italy
How far righty is it, though, actually?
Modern definition seems to be about words/language and saying Trumpy stuff. Not actually beating up opponents, locking up judges, censoring the press, locking up minorities, summary executions and shootings, and militarising etc.
In fact, the one nation I can think of that is actually doing a little bit of that is Modi's India. China is doing almost all of it.
Well according to twitter we have an actual Facsist government in the U.K. Now either I failed to understand my history, or an awful lot of people think anyone to the right of them in political opinion is a facsist.
How much would it take to line the French beaches (even if hundreds of miles) with a border guard every 200 yards and a few drones for 24/7 (particularly dawn and dusk) every time the weather is nice like this?
I think every single crossing could be detected and stopped at launch.
The French just don't want to do it; there's probably a secret "quota" they let through v. stop and that comes from the French government.
Unless I've missed it not much love for Robbie Robertson on here then? He'd have been a PB sort of icon, I'd have thought. I pulled into Nazareth ...
A lot from me, but he gets billing about 30 places below BBC sitcom guy
They covered it on the Today prog at least. I was sad to hear he'd died. Long time ago now but I had a real 'Band' phase.
All those years ago, I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Robbie and his mates spent hours throwing around ideas for the group's name and settled on "The Band".
The The - best band name ever!
It's not though - even when I first heard it via the some bizzare album I didn't think it was a good name. It's 'almost', and that's the way the tracks are too.
Pre-album appearance of "Photographic" by Depeche Mode!
But of course it is by definition telling us that we weren't there!
How much would it take to line the French beaches (even if hundreds of miles) with a border guard every 200 yards and a few drones for 24/7 (particularly dawn and dusk) every time the weather is nice like this?
I think every single crossing could be detected and stopped at launch.
The French just don't want to do it; there's probably a secret "quota" they let through v. stop and that comes from the French government.
Of course the French don’t want to stop them! We wouldn’t stop them leaving to go to France, now would we!
Wtf I get a letter when I get home I am legally obliged to register to vote
Even though I dont plan on voting for any politicians because they are all words thats start with the same letter as cauliflower
Er, genuinely surprised this is news to you. It's been the law for many years.
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
Why if i am not legally obliged to vote am I legally obliged to register to vote?
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
It is a worldwide (or rich-world) problem, and requires world-wide (rich-world) solutions.
We are not alone in this.
I know I have connections with that part of the world, but Turkey has been housing oodles of refugees since the start of the Syrian Civil War. Perhaps that is a model:
1) Try to stop the reasons for people to leave - improving living standards in home countries. Which means increasing international aid, albeit better targeted. Boo-hiss from the right. 2) Paying for adjacent countries to house refugees (Increasing international aid - see above) 3) As we are many countries away from 'danger', having strict immigration rules, speedily and fairly met. (Boo-hiss some on the left). 4) Having strict rules against people who break the above (boo-hiss the left).
We should also address that countries like Belarus have been using refugees/migrants as political pawns. But basically: as well as stopping them coming here, we need to address *why* they want to come here. And make adjacent states good for genuine refugees.
Wtf I get a letter when I get home I am legally obliged to register to vote
Even though I dont plan on voting for any politicians because they are all words thats start with the same letter as cauliflower
Er, genuinely surprised this is news to you. It's been the law for many years.
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
Why if i am not legally obliged to vote am I legally obliged to register to vote?
Because it’s the law. Also maintaining a correct electoral register is useful for givenment in terms of allocating spending etc. You can have your name not available on the register, I think.
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
Hmm. I think that's tenuous.
Callaghan was arguing for defence cuts anyway and even if Endurance had stayed there it wasn't particularly well armed and I'm not sure it'd have stopped Galtieri, who was desperate.
Wtf I get a letter when I get home I am legally obliged to register to vote
Even though I dont plan on voting for any politicians because they are all words thats start with the same letter as cauliflower
Er, genuinely surprised this is news to you. It's been the law for many years.
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
Why if i am not legally obliged to vote am I legally obliged to register to vote?
Because it’s the law. Also maintaining a correct electoral register is useful for givenment in terms of allocating spending etc. You can have your name not available on the register, I think.
I will respond to the letter as I am legally obliged to....the response is fuck off. Its still a response
How much would it take to line the French beaches (even if hundreds of miles) with a border guard every 200 yards and a few drones for 24/7 (particularly dawn and dusk) every time the weather is nice like this?
I think every single crossing could be detected and stopped at launch.
The French just don't want to do it; there's probably a secret "quota" they let through v. stop and that comes from the French government.
One guard every 200m?
Four for 24 hours.
Food, latrine ...
And totally useless, because one guard can't arrest a boatload or four. Who will have gone off by the time he gets his colleagues round. So of course they will be sensible and not bother.
And now has a far right government. All those lefties who shrug at the dinghy people and try to scupper ANY scheme to stall them could profitably look at what happened in Italy
How far righty is it, though, actually?
Modern definition seems to be about words/language and saying Trumpy stuff. Not actually beating up opponents, locking up judges, censoring the press, locking up minorities, summary executions and shootings, and militarising etc.
In fact, the one nation I can think of that is actually doing a little bit of that is Modi's India. China is doing almost all of it.
Well according to twitter we have an actual Facsist government in the U.K. Now either I failed to understand my history, or an awful lot of people think anyone to the right of them in political opinion is a facsist.
According to the local Angry Men In Corduroy Trousers, manning the Corbyn shrine on the high street, this government has
- cut the state pension - Deliberately sunk boats in the channel - banned all wind farms and solar farms
It’s what they wanted to have happened. It’s like MAGA on Biden, only the people involved are less over weight.
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
That is rather presumptuous. The Falkland Islands were a crumb on the map (apologies to Sue Townsend) before 1982. What makes you think that Callaghan would not have done the same actions as Thatcher did?
Why? What has she done apart from being married to Obama? She might be great at the job, almost certainly better than Biden and Trump, but why her? Is it her turn now?
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
That is rather presumptuous. The Falkland Islands were a crumb on the map (apologies to Sue Townsend) before 1982. What makes you think that Callaghan would not have done the same actions as Thatcher did?
Because Callaghan had not done so while in office immediately before Mrs T.
I’ll be careful how I say this, but it does appear that there’s a lot of British cars in Ukraine at the moment…
Hereford registration plate?
Don’t think it’s the Hereford Boat Club, but that organisation has plenty of former members who enjoy being where the ‘action’ is, and know how to use the equipment that’s being sent out here.
Mostly pickup trucks and utility 4x4s, hastily pained grey or green. Good luck to them.
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
That is rather presumptuous. The Falkland Islands were a crumb on the map (apologies to Sue Townsend) before 1982. What makes you think that Callaghan would not have done the same actions as Thatcher did?
Because Callaghan had not done so while in office immediately before Mrs T.
Neither had the Conservative administration before him. All wanted the messy situation in the Falklands sorted out, as part of the de=imperialisation of the UK. Operation Journeyman being an example of the two-faced impressions were were giving.
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
That is rather presumptuous. The Falkland Islands were a crumb on the map (apologies to Sue Townsend) before 1982. What makes you think that Callaghan would not have done the same actions as Thatcher did?
Because Callaghan had not done so while in office immediately before Mrs T.
AIR when the Falklands were threatened by an Argentine force in 1977 he did despatch additional naval units to the area.
The 'additional naval unit' including a nuclear-armed submarine.
We can get a good sense of what Britain might have been like in the 1980s under a Labour government by reading their 1979 manifesto.
It advocated a continuance of prices & incomes policy, full employment, collective bargaining with the TUC and no strike law reform (indeed it proposed extending such rights into the private sector) and disarmament. It spends a lot of time attacking the free market. It says it wants higher wealth taxes (although raising the threshold for income tax at the lowest level) and phasing out private beds in the NHS. Also says it wants to phase out fee paying schools. Very limited scope to buy council houses.
I'm sure North Sea oil revenues would have helped but it's hard to escape the conclusion this would have kept a regulated labour market, misallocated public resources with higher taxes to divert more resources into old industries to maintain employment, with inflation higher for longer, and delayed the growth of new services industries. Devolution might have come earlier. I doubt Callaghan would have disarmed but it says he wants to reduce defence spending overall and not sure he'd have gone for Trident. Also not sure he would have fully mobilised over the Falklands. NI looks about the same. Talks a bit about reform of CAP (what an oldy) and reform EEC community contribution.
Therefore, overall, I think it would have beem a continuation of 1970s policies and kept Britain poorer with less choice for longer.
Labour would have lost by a landslide in 1983/1984, IMHO.
Callaghan would not have needed to mobilise for the Falklands because unlike Mrs Thatcher, he would not have scrapped the token naval presence there, which led Argentina to think it could invade. Decades of Tory defence cuts started here, and accelerated even after the Falklands War.
That is rather presumptuous. The Falkland Islands were a crumb on the map (apologies to Sue Townsend) before 1982. What makes you think that Callaghan would not have done the same actions as Thatcher did?
Because Callaghan had not done so while in office immediately before Mrs T.
AIR when the Falklands were threatened by an Argentine force in 1977 he did despatch additional naval units to the area.
The 'additional naval unit' including a nuclear-armed submarine.
Hyufd would have approved.
... See 'Operation Journeyman', which I mention below. And South Thule remained occupied until 1982. It was this sort of mixed message that in my (inexpert) view led to the Falklands War.
"... their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them."
It was the same thing that led to Russia invading Ukraine last year: taking a bit, the opponents doing little more than tut-tutting, and then trying to take a bit more a few years later.
Wtf I get a letter when I get home I am legally obliged to register to vote
Even though I dont plan on voting for any politicians because they are all words thats start with the same letter as cauliflower
Er, genuinely surprised this is news to you. It's been the law for many years.
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
Why if i am not legally obliged to vote am I legally obliged to register to vote?
Because it’s the law. Also maintaining a correct electoral register is useful for givenment in terms of allocating spending etc. You can have your name not available on the register, I think.
I will respond to the letter as I am legally obliged to....the response is fuck off. Its still a response
And now has a far right government. All those lefties who shrug at the dinghy people and try to scupper ANY scheme to stall them could profitably look at what happened in Italy
How far righty is it, though, actually?
Modern definition seems to be about words/language and saying Trumpy stuff. Not actually beating up opponents, locking up judges, censoring the press, locking up minorities, summary executions and shootings, and militarising etc.
In fact, the one nation I can think of that is actually doing a little bit of that is Modi's India. China is doing almost all of it.
Well according to twitter we have an actual Facsist government in the U.K. Now either I failed to understand my history, or an awful lot of people think anyone to the right of them in political opinion is a facsist.
According to the local Angry Men In Corduroy Trousers, manning the Corbyn shrine on the high street, this government has
- cut the state pension - Deliberately sunk boats in the channel - banned all wind farms and solar farms
It’s what they wanted to have happened. It’s like MAGA on Biden, only the people involved are less over weight.
Italy is doing things like removing the names of lesbian mothers from birth certificates. Does that count as far right?
Comments
Of course, you could claim an excuse such as that you have severe learning difficulties. But I don't think that would work? Don't think comparing pols to cabbages or coleworts would work.
The principle is good tho. If you lose control of your borders the voters will vote further and further right until they elect a government prepared to do drastic things
I think every single crossing could be detected and stopped at launch.
The French just don't want to do it; there's probably a secret "quota" they let through v. stop and that comes from the French government.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/10/2024-election-barack-obama-michelle-joe-biden-us-politics/
We are not alone in this.
I know I have connections with that part of the world, but Turkey has been housing oodles of refugees since the start of the Syrian Civil War. Perhaps that is a model:
1) Try to stop the reasons for people to leave - improving living standards in home countries. Which means increasing international aid, albeit better targeted. Boo-hiss from the right.
2) Paying for adjacent countries to house refugees (Increasing international aid - see above)
3) As we are many countries away from 'danger', having strict immigration rules, speedily and fairly met. (Boo-hiss some on the left).
4) Having strict rules against people who break the above (boo-hiss the left).
We should also address that countries like Belarus have been using refugees/migrants as political pawns. But basically: as well as stopping them coming here, we need to address *why* they want to come here. And make adjacent states good for genuine refugees.
Callaghan was arguing for defence cuts anyway and even if Endurance had stayed there it wasn't particularly well armed and I'm not sure it'd have stopped Galtieri, who was desperate.
I hope I am wrong on this.
Four for 24 hours.
Food, latrine ...
And totally useless, because one guard can't arrest a boatload or four. Who will have gone off by the time he gets his colleagues round. So of course they will be sensible and not bother.
- cut the state pension
- Deliberately sunk boats in the channel
- banned all wind farms and solar farms
It’s what they wanted to have happened. It’s like MAGA on Biden, only the people involved are less over weight.
However I’m not sure Michelle Obama is the correct black woman and will be too polarising.
Mostly pickup trucks and utility 4x4s, hastily pained grey or green. Good luck to them.
The 'additional naval unit' including a nuclear-armed submarine.
Hyufd would have approved.
"... their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Journeyman
It was the same thing that led to Russia invading Ukraine last year: taking a bit, the opponents doing little more than tut-tutting, and then trying to take a bit more a few years later.
She'd smash him to smithereens.
After all, who truly knows themselves?