The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
That’s d’Annunzio. An Italian proto-Fascist
Somewhat idealised.
'There before me was a frightful gnome with red-rimmed eyes and no eyelashes, no hair, greenish teeth, bad breath'
The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
That’s d’Annunzio. An Italian proto-Fascist
Somewhat idealised.
'There before me was a frightful gnome with red-rimmed eyes and no eyelashes, no hair, greenish teeth, bad breath'
Don't know if anybody else is following the Montane Spine race along the Pennine Way but the current front runners are ahead of the current record. Will be interesting to see if they can keep up the pace with the interesting weather approaching. I must admit I get a bit obsessed with watching the counters move along the map. If anybodies interested the tracking map is here:
The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
That’s d’Annunzio. An Italian proto-Fascist
Somewhat idealised.
'There before me was a frightful gnome with red-rimmed eyes and no eyelashes, no hair, greenish teeth, bad breath'
Indeed. His incredible success at womanising (which is undisputed) becomes even more incredible in that context. He must have been very *rizz*
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
I think the Tory stewardship of Ofcom has been excellent and has got the UK into being the leader in FTTP build. They didn't do it directly of course but they were very up for splitting off Openreach which certainly helped.
... after sneering at Labour for its broadband plans, they decided maybe Jezza was onto something after all.
Except that's back to front. The genesis of what is happening now predates Corbyn's brainwave, which would almost certainly have put a halt to the huge investment and very rapid deployment that is taking place. It's not perfect, there's a lot of overbuild, but the UK is now deploying fibre at the fastest pace in Europe, and much of it should be good for several generations of upgrades.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
The problem is that child road casualties occur pretty much uniformly across neighbourhoods, including on main roads. Check out the various STATS19 data based maps.
Adult casualties occur primarily at junctions (which is another argument for LTNs, but that's another debate).
There are other benefits for uniform limits - much cheaper to implement, less confusing for drivers, the introduction of a "new normal" that is easier to adhere to. I instinctively drive around my hometown at 20mph out of a habit developed in Edinburgh.
Yes, but you're being rational.
*Edinburghcityofenlightenment*
Of course, pedestrians could always try walking on the pavements, where they may find they go unmolested by cars proceeding at blistering speeds like 30mph.
Sadly, between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed by drivers mounting pavements. Perhaps 20mph limits would've saved some of those lives?
Find me the ones who mounted the pavement and killed someone whilst observing a 30mph limit and I'm interested.
Wales is apparently the only place in the world where driver reaction time and *the laws of physics* don't apply.
To bring it back to politics - this opposition to 20mph limits works as a disruptive online campaign run by CCHQ. It does not, however, work at a local campaign level - "higher speeds on your street!".
You're 'bringing it back to politics' because you appreciate that your argument is bullshite. Campaigning for a 20mph limit outside a school where there isn't one currently is in no way whatsoever in conflict with campaigning against it being imposed arbitrarily in places where there aren't any schools. Trying to twist your way out of that basic fact makes you look a plonker.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
Give her the Inside Story of the Regulas Compact/Plot!
(Believe you were fly on the wall? OR was it rot in the roof?)
No idea, as I've never heard of the Regulas Compact.
I know a thing or two about the Relugas Compact, but I have to be up at five tomorrow so haven't time to tell you.
Ahead of tonight's First-in-the-Nation Iowa Caucus, set to commence at 7PM CST, the Republican Party of Iowa is publicly releasing its results tabulation website:
As precinct caucuses across all 99 Iowa counties conduct and relay the results of their presidential preference polls, the Iowa GOP's caucus results site will be populated with vote tallies at precinct, county, and statewide levels.
Vote tallies for the following candidates will be provided, in addition to an aggregate "other" category for all other votes cast in the 2024 caucus's presidential preference poll: Ryan Binkley, Governor Chris Christie*, Governor Ron DeSantis, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, and President Donald J. Trump.
The Republican Party of Iowa will not be making any other statements or declarations about the results of the 2024 caucus beyond what will be listed on the results webpage.
*Christie will still be included on the Iowa GOP's reporting site and official E forms, which went into production well before Christie suspended his campaign last week.
Thanks SSI - any idea what time we might expect the first results, given that it starts at 1am GMT?
🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨
@lizziedearden UNHCR says the new "duty to remove" small boat migrants in the Illegal Migration Act (not yet triggered but core to govt plans), and Safety of Rwanda Bill, have worsened the situation and also violate the Refugee Convention
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Ahead of tonight's First-in-the-Nation Iowa Caucus, set to commence at 7PM CST, the Republican Party of Iowa is publicly releasing its results tabulation website:
As precinct caucuses across all 99 Iowa counties conduct and relay the results of their presidential preference polls, the Iowa GOP's caucus results site will be populated with vote tallies at precinct, county, and statewide levels.
Vote tallies for the following candidates will be provided, in addition to an aggregate "other" category for all other votes cast in the 2024 caucus's presidential preference poll: Ryan Binkley, Governor Chris Christie*, Governor Ron DeSantis, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, and President Donald J. Trump.
The Republican Party of Iowa will not be making any other statements or declarations about the results of the 2024 caucus beyond what will be listed on the results webpage.
*Christie will still be included on the Iowa GOP's reporting site and official E forms, which went into production well before Christie suspended his campaign last week.
Thanks SSI - any idea what time we might expect the first results, given that it starts at 1am GMT?
Just guessing, reckon a few precincts with small turnout will report earliest.
But most caucuses will take 2-3 hours, just to check IDs, register new voters or change reg to GOP, although this will likely begin before 7pm most locations. Also will be speeches, also nomination and election of people to be delegates to next step in process.
Also, they will (or at least should) keep proceeding open long enough so folks have time to vote; campaigns will likely encourage this, as delegates will be apportioned based on TOTAL statewide vote.
NYT live blog - Dian Treptow, 57, a church administrative assistant, went to see Ron DeSantis at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids shortly before the caucuses. “I’ve known that I wanted to vote for him and now I’ll get to meet him,” she said. She convinced her friend, Cindy Blake, 54, a U.S. Army veteran, to not only attend the event with her, but to caucus for DeSantis tonight, too.
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
Give her the Inside Story of the Regulas Compact/Plot!
(Believe you were fly on the wall? OR was it rot in the roof?)
No idea, as I've never heard of the Regulas Compact.
I know a thing or two about the Relugas Compact, but I have to be up at five tomorrow so haven't time to tell you.
I stand corrected . . . curses. (But not on you.)
“ The Relugas Compact was the plot hatched in 1905 by British Liberal Party politicians H. H. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and R. B. Haldane to force the prospective prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to give up the leadership of the party in the House of Commons. The Compact is significant because it represents a new way of doing party political business at the highest level. In an era when aristocratic power was still taken for granted, the manoeuvring for the highest office in the land represented for the first time distinct political philosophies vying for control of one of the major parties. Learning from an association with Tories Salisbury and Balfour at Hatfield, the Liberal Imperialists stole a march on their rivals to take a step nearer modernisation. Moreover, they brought with them junior ministers such as Sidney Buxton and Henry Fowler, making it look like a take over from the Gladstonian Radicals, of whom the ageing Prime Minister was the last.”
Sounds like brutal putsch. So which side were the good guys? I don’t know much, but weren’t the liberals very “woke” in the late 19th century, anti monarchy and Republican? So the liberal imperial were the good guys, distancing/modernizing the liberal party from those stupid wishywashy corbynesque ways, and the voters loved it?
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
@lizziedearden UNHCR says the new "duty to remove" small boat migrants in the Illegal Migration Act (not yet triggered but core to govt plans), and Safety of Rwanda Bill, have worsened the situation and also violate the Refugee Convention
Just withdraw. These institutions are not fit for 21st century purpose. Enough
The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
I thought that a touch obvious, plus that is a really natty uniform.
I was in Rijeka recently, It was interesting how thoroughly they have extirpated the past. I tried to find any evidence of the Whitehead factory. Nothing.
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
@lizziedearden UNHCR says the new "duty to remove" small boat migrants in the Illegal Migration Act (not yet triggered but core to govt plans), and Safety of Rwanda Bill, have worsened the situation and also violate the Refugee Convention
Just withdraw. These institutions are not fit for 21st century purpose. Enough
The obvious answer is to tell them to get fucked. The UN is a corrupt cesspit.
The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
I thought that a touch obvious, plus that is a really natty uniform.
I was in Rijeka recently, It was interesting how thoroughly they have extirpated the past. I tried to find any evidence of the Whitehead factory. Nothing.
You were Fiume-ing?
Well, quite. His plans for a happy holiday got torpedoed.
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
The long standing PB tradition - possibly before your time - has been to consult @edmundintokyo and ask him to adjudicate, as he has long been seen as suitably neutral, distant and intelligent to make a good judicious call
He has helpfully stepped up several times
I suggest you present the facts to him and see if he is willing to judge a case, once again?
@lizziedearden UNHCR says the new "duty to remove" small boat migrants in the Illegal Migration Act (not yet triggered but core to govt plans), and Safety of Rwanda Bill, have worsened the situation and also violate the Refugee Convention
Just withdraw. These institutions are not fit for 21st century purpose. Enough
The obvious answer is to tell them to get fucked. The UN is a corrupt cesspit.
Yes. Quite. Enough
Fuck knows why we even pay a moment’s notice to these leftoid woke ngo shyster-lawyers, who are full of anti western hatred
The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany
Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir
I guess you ony want representation for people you like/agree with?
I bet you would have argued against representation for the subpostmasters, the Birmingham Six, and Stefan Kizko.
His cab was always conveniently ready to give Islamist groups a lift
Is there a Halal cab queue?
Almost like a top human rights lawyer gets hired in human rights cases.
But are all these 'halal' sic?
Neat how your list concludes by bringing us back to Hizb ut-Tahrir
I appreciate HuT are Islamist, and may well be anti-semitic, but have they ever been involved in terrorism?
Encouraging jihad is their big thing
They may not have blown themselves up, but they must share responsibility for many hundreds of terrorist attacks around the globe
What do you think the limits to free speech should be? And which have they broken?
We're seeing some really odd behaviour from PB lefties on here today. Strong support for Houtis blowing up ships in the Red Sea, and now support for groups that encourage Jihad.
I guess Corbynism isn't dead...
Corbynism isn't dead, even in 2019 32% of UK voters voted for him and in their guts most lefties would prefer PM Corbyn to PM Starmer.
Just after Corbyn's heavy defeat in 2019 they realised they had to compromise with the electorate and elect a boring, competent centrist like Starmer as Labour leader
Corbynism in its most virulent form likely is. For a time Corbyn gained the support of the generally left-wing and not just the far left. That had arguably already unwound by 2019 - when Brexit and the choice with Johnson kept more onside than otherwise might have been the case. While Labour MPs won't make their 2015 mistake and let someone they think is crackers on the ballot.
I'd note even in the Young Labour elections (a small sample size) - which used to be a Corbynite walkover, the centrists are winning.
There will always be a left though, just an impotent shouty bit that wants to go on marches, and one inside Labour that realises that if it wants left-wing policies in Britain, it needs to find leaders without the deeply flawed worldview that so often led him to look like he wanted to side with those who wanted to do us harm.
I doubt there are many who share Jeremy Corbyn's fascination with Central American politics.
The interesting aspect of "left" politics currently is you have the socialist and internationalist strain that is represented by Corbyn but we are seeing in Germany the emergence of a different kind of socialist politics - nationalist, anti-immigrant and culturally conservative emphasising the need to raise taxes and provide services support first and foremost for indigenous people. That "could" be an attractive option and there's a clear niche for it if Reform heads down an economically Thatcherite route (likely with Farage in charge).
A Socialism of a National kind? How very original.
Worse, a German Socialism of a National kind.
I thought that a touch obvious, plus that is a really natty uniform.
I was in Rijeka recently, It was interesting how thoroughly they have extirpated the past. I tried to find any evidence of the Whitehead factory. Nothing.
You were Fiume-ing?
It's a strange end to a strange story. The English engineer who helped the Austro-Hungarian Navy win at Lissa. Whose terrible invention gave us the Sound of Music. And the Cruel Sea.
Ahead of tonight's First-in-the-Nation Iowa Caucus, set to commence at 7PM CST, the Republican Party of Iowa is publicly releasing its results tabulation website:
As precinct caucuses across all 99 Iowa counties conduct and relay the results of their presidential preference polls, the Iowa GOP's caucus results site will be populated with vote tallies at precinct, county, and statewide levels.
Vote tallies for the following candidates will be provided, in addition to an aggregate "other" category for all other votes cast in the 2024 caucus's presidential preference poll: Ryan Binkley, Governor Chris Christie*, Governor Ron DeSantis, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, and President Donald J. Trump.
The Republican Party of Iowa will not be making any other statements or declarations about the results of the 2024 caucus beyond what will be listed on the results webpage.
*Christie will still be included on the Iowa GOP's reporting site and official E forms, which went into production well before Christie suspended his campaign last week.
Thanks SSI - any idea what time we might expect the first results, given that it starts at 1am GMT?
Just guessing, reckon a few precincts with small turnout will report earliest.
But most caucuses will take 2-3 hours, just to check IDs, register new voters or change reg to GOP, although this will likely begin before 7pm most locations. Also will be speeches, also nomination and election of people to be delegates to next step in process.
Also, they will (or at least should) keep proceeding open long enough so folks have time to vote; campaigns will likely encourage this, as delegates will be apportioned based on TOTAL statewide vote.
Has anyone ever considered the whole country just turning up on the same day once and putting an X on a piece of paper might save a lot of hassle, dispute and expense?
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
Give her the Inside Story of the Regulas Compact/Plot!
(Believe you were fly on the wall? OR was it rot in the roof?)
No idea, as I've never heard of the Regulas Compact.
I know a thing or two about the Relugas Compact, but I have to be up at five tomorrow so haven't time to tell you.
I stand corrected . . . curses. (But not on you.)
“ The Relugas Compact was the plot hatched in 1905 by British Liberal Party politicians H. H. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and R. B. Haldane to force the prospective prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to give up the leadership of the party in the House of Commons. The Compact is significant because it represents a new way of doing party political business at the highest level. In an era when aristocratic power was still taken for granted, the manoeuvring for the highest office in the land represented for the first time distinct political philosophies vying for control of one of the major parties. Learning from an association with Tories Salisbury and Balfour at Hatfield, the Liberal Imperialists stole a march on their rivals to take a step nearer modernisation. Moreover, they brought with them junior ministers such as Sidney Buxton and Henry Fowler, making it look like a take over from the Gladstonian Radicals, of whom the ageing Prime Minister was the last.”
Sounds like brutal putsch. So which side were the good guys? I don’t know much, but weren’t the liberals very “woke” in the late 19th century, anti monarchy and Republican? So the liberal imperial were the good guys, distancing/modernizing the liberal party from those stupid wishywashy corbynesque ways, and the voters loved it?
Some late 19th-cen Liberals were republican, but mass & mainstream were not. And British republicanism faded when Queen Victoria dropped the "Widow of Windsor" schtick and started doing her job again in public.
Asquith, Gray and Haldane were Liberal imperialists; they wanted to tap Campbell-Bannerman's electoral appeal (years afterward) of the Boer War, then grab the gusto of government for themselves, on grounds that C-B was too old (and int the way). But their Leader turned tables on them (with the stout bucking-up of his wife) and won, by calling their bluff (to not join his govt).
Within a few years, C-B was dead, and Asquith was finally PM . . . with Lloyd George looking over HIS shoulder . . .
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
@BethRigby LIVE in News at 10 - Govt to face down rebels and say ‘no amendments required’ as offer package of measures (more judges/streamlining appeal cases) - Party atmosphere dire. Some MPs insisting anyone on payroll backing amendments must be sacked - Levido to MPs: The Q is do you want to win?
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
The long standing PB tradition - possibly before your time - has been to consult @edmundintokyo and ask him to adjudicate, as he has long been seen as suitably neutral, distant and intelligent to make a good judicious call
He has helpfully stepped up several times
I suggest you present the facts to him and see if he is willing to judge a case, once again?
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
The problem is that child road casualties occur pretty much uniformly across neighbourhoods, including on main roads. Check out the various STATS19 data based maps.
Adult casualties occur primarily at junctions (which is another argument for LTNs, but that's another debate).
There are other benefits for uniform limits - much cheaper to implement, less confusing for drivers, the introduction of a "new normal" that is easier to adhere to. I instinctively drive around my hometown at 20mph out of a habit developed in Edinburgh.
Yes, but you're being rational.
*Edinburghcityofenlightenment*
Of course, pedestrians could always try walking on the pavements, where they may find they go unmolested by cars proceeding at blistering speeds like 30mph.
Sadly, between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed by drivers mounting pavements. Perhaps 20mph limits would've saved some of those lives?
Find me the ones who mounted the pavement and killed someone whilst observing a 30mph limit and I'm interested.
Wales is apparently the only place in the world where driver reaction time and *the laws of physics* don't apply.
To bring it back to politics - this opposition to 20mph limits works as a disruptive online campaign run by CCHQ. It does not, however, work at a local campaign level - "higher speeds on your street!".
Of course it does.
Why not make the speed limit 4 miles per hour by your logic? Or require someone to walk in front of a vehicle carrying a flag?
30mph is not a high speed on a through road.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 mph will probably not.
Ahead of tonight's First-in-the-Nation Iowa Caucus, set to commence at 7PM CST, the Republican Party of Iowa is publicly releasing its results tabulation website:
As precinct caucuses across all 99 Iowa counties conduct and relay the results of their presidential preference polls, the Iowa GOP's caucus results site will be populated with vote tallies at precinct, county, and statewide levels.
Vote tallies for the following candidates will be provided, in addition to an aggregate "other" category for all other votes cast in the 2024 caucus's presidential preference poll: Ryan Binkley, Governor Chris Christie*, Governor Ron DeSantis, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, and President Donald J. Trump.
The Republican Party of Iowa will not be making any other statements or declarations about the results of the 2024 caucus beyond what will be listed on the results webpage.
*Christie will still be included on the Iowa GOP's reporting site and official E forms, which went into production well before Christie suspended his campaign last week.
Thanks SSI - any idea what time we might expect the first results, given that it starts at 1am GMT?
Just guessing, reckon a few precincts with small turnout will report earliest.
But most caucuses will take 2-3 hours, just to check IDs, register new voters or change reg to GOP, although this will likely begin before 7pm most locations. Also will be speeches, also nomination and election of people to be delegates to next step in process.
Also, they will (or at least should) keep proceeding open long enough so folks have time to vote; campaigns will likely encourage this, as delegates will be apportioned based on TOTAL statewide vote.
Has anyone ever considered the whole country just turning up on the same day once and putting an X on a piece of paper might save a lot of hassle, dispute and expense?
People voting for whom they please, and their votes being counted accurately?
Why, that would be The End of Democracy!
Edit : I want 2 week elections. And lots of gin - make it the law that the candidates can spend as much as they like on free alcohol for the voters.
Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.
The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you replied
“Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“
So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
That is not accurate.
Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?
The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:
1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all. 2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that. 3. We forget it and I let you off.
If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
This is complete madness. You literally said you were happy to void it.
I suggested two options and you said you were happy to do either. I didn’t say anything more because I was leaving it to you and Robert to sort out, you having agreed to what I had suggested
I mentioned it as a self deprecating joke, because I did lay 3/1 Sir Keir to be PM after the GE, and @Peter_the_Punter had been calling me a useless bettor. But you had agreed to either void it or sort it out with Robert
Yes, laid to me!
That isn't at all a reasonable interpretation of where the email exchange left things. You didn't reply to me. RCS made no comment at all. It was left hanging. There was nothing agreed. Hence the need to resolve it now.
Let's assume a misunderstanding (it happens) and start again with the presumption of good faith on all sides.
We did the bet. That's agreed.
You propose it is transferred from you to @rcs1000 (because of some outstandings the two of you have, the details of which I don't have knowledge of).
We await his input before continuing.
You said you were happy to void it. What on earth makes you think I wasn’t happy to, seeing as I suggested it? If Sir Keir had dropped dead, or been sacked, do you really think I’d have asked for the £100??!
In fact our situation is similar to that between Robert and myself; I wanted to void that bet because I was banned from the site, outrageously unfairly in my view, and didn’t want to be in the situation of being unable to post, liable for bets and easily able to be knocked. He said our bet stood, and if I refused to pay that was my choice. I said it’s void. We never spoke about it again. As it happens, I will win that bet, but I’m not going to ask for the money, and it’s a lot more than £300, because I understood it to be void, despite Robert never saying ‘Happy to void’ as you did
Well that's between you and him. We struck the Starmer bet and that's not disputed. Neither are the terms. You want to cancel it and I don't.
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
Why did you say ‘happy to void’ then if you’re not standing by that now? It’s not as though it was in the balance then and now the position has changed drastically. I emailed you to explain the situation, making it obvious I didnt think the bet should stand, and you said ‘happy to void’. Is your word not worth £300?
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Newsnight now descended into a massive row as the Trump spokesperson accuses BBC of being bias and just like NY Times.
Trump won in 2020! Honest!
Anybody who says otherwise is a lying commie snake.
Colonel "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Thank goodness those small boats and potential mixed-gender toilets will be dealt with though. If councils weren't spending a trillion pounds a year on woke trans playgroups none of this would be a problem.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Thank goodness those small boats and potential mixed-gender toilets will be dealt with though. If councils weren't spending a trillion pounds a year on woke trans playgroups none of this would be a problem.
:: awaits Telegraph columnist offer ::
Well, given the size of the boats, having even one toilet would be a bit of an achievement. So it has to be mixed gender.
I wonder about the arrangements in the Libyan Coastguards Migrant Employment facilities, though.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Theresa May is no particular hero of mine, but her approach to dementia care was to be applauded. But the electorate thought otherwise sadly. It wasn't even a real tax.
NYT live blog - Dian Treptow, 57, a church administrative assistant, went to see Ron DeSantis at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids shortly before the caucuses. “I’ve known that I wanted to vote for him and now I’ll get to meet him,” she said. She convinced her friend, Cindy Blake, 54, a U.S. Army veteran, to not only attend the event with her, but to caucus for DeSantis tonight, too.
Seems pointless when even if Trump does not win he will say he did and that the winner cheated, and then even the person he says cheated will end up licking his boots and declaring how great he is.
At the moment our politicians can still claim the occasional bit of self respect, but in the GOP?
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
It shouldn't be that surprising, even.
First rule of the internet is that people aren't necessarily who they say they are, or even anyone at all.
So if Shithole is going to tell MPs that he will simply ignore the ECHR, will the next step be to simply ignore Rwanda when they say no?
Remember folks - this is the 3rd reading to send the bill to be torn apart in the Lords. Who we already know will gut it and send it back. Not can the Commons insist on primacy. This bill is contrary to the manifesto…
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
It shouldn't be that surprising, even.
First rule of the internet is that people aren't necessarily who they say they are, or even anyone at all.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Austerity in 2010 for local governments I can defend. There was a lot of dead wood to be found, and it was. The problem was it successfully found it but it has not ended, to the point little live wood remains, when you add on the third point you raise, which is one of the most significant factors.
Yes there is always some new waste to be found, some silly project or investment, but the public paints that as the main issue, which is akin to blaming the housing crisis on a lack of brownfield development - it hasn't helped, but is far from the biggest problem, and people don't really address it in any case.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
It's the idea of Heaven that terrorises me. Happy for ever and ever. How boring. A contradiction. At least Hell would be challenging.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
It shouldn't be that surprising, even.
First rule of the internet is that people aren't necessarily who they say they are, or even anyone at all.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
It shouldn't be that surprising, even.
First rule of the internet is that people aren't necessarily who they say they are, or even anyone at all.
Tell me about it. In reality I am Leon.
And so are you.
When I finally accepted that I too was Leon it was shocking at first, but after a moment comes acceptance and peace.
Off topic, but I think many of you will like the new Miss America -- and be surprised at her day job. (I'm not mentioning it, because I want to give as many as possible the chance to discover it for themselves. More fun that way.)
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
It's the idea of Heaven that terrorises me. Happy for ever and ever. How boring. A contradiction. At least Hell would be challenging.
Happy if you like just praising God all day perhaps, depending on the particular denomination's idea of things.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Perhaps the story of the "No Hellers" of the Appalachians might cheer her up. VERY religious Christians, but totally reject concept of Hell in afterlife, as contrary to Christ's sacrifice.
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
Theresa May is no particular hero of mine, but her approach to dementia care was to be applauded. But the electorate thought otherwise sadly. It wasn't even a real tax.
Politically she should have not mentioned it and just done it afterwards. Yes there'd have been arguments about mandate afterwards, but so what? People don't halt their objections to a government policy because they laid it out in their manifesto, they ignore that or they say the mandate is no longer there or does not apply for some reason.
Of course, there's no guarantee she would have gotten over the line, with enough votes to push through something that unpopular, had she not included it in the campaign, other things would have come up, but it was a mistaken attempt at honesty.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
It's the idea of Heaven that terrorises me. Happy for ever and ever. How boring. A contradiction. At least Hell would be challenging.
For some reason I'm thinking of the scene in Terry Pratchett when Teach dies, and an Amazon turns up to take him to Valhalla, since he died on the field of battle in the company of the Silver Hoard. After ascertaining that Form 3B won't be there, he agrees to go along.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
It's the idea of Heaven that terrorises me. Happy for ever and ever. How boring. A contradiction. At least Hell would be challenging.
There's an old BBC "Smith'n'Jones" drama with two CoE vicars from 'opposing wings' waiting in purgatory. Worth digging out,
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Seems a bit harsh to send you out of class for that. Forres seems a perfectly normal answer. Like I said, religions are bastards.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Perhaps the story of the "No Hellers" of the Appalachians might cheer her up. VERY religious Christians, but totally reject concept of Hell in afterlife, as contrary to Christ's sacrifice.
Had a really dispiriting conversation earlier, with someone I care deeply about, on the subject of the Hamas executions of the two hostages. For me, the deliberate killing of the two hostages is qualitatively very different to unintended civilian casualties that are happening in Gaza during the Israeli war with Hamas. The intent to kill someone who is unarmed, and under your control, is so much more chilling, even though Israel are doubtless not taking as much care for Gazan civilian lives as they ought.
But my interlocutor did not see it this way. They felt that Israel almost wanted these executions - to justify its war, and because they weren't trying that hard to rescue hostages. They agree with the South African submission to the ICJ, that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza, rather than fighting a war of self-defence following the October 7th attack. They displayed wuite a degree of conspiratorial thinking about the October 7th attacks, that Israel purposefully provoked them, and seem to take it as read that Israel's war aim is to empty Gaza of all Palestinians, one way or another.
Am I hopelessly naive about Israel's intentions, or have I talked to someone who has swallowed the narrative of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
The problem is that child road casualties occur pretty much uniformly across neighbourhoods, including on main roads. Check out the various STATS19 data based maps.
Adult casualties occur primarily at junctions (which is another argument for LTNs, but that's another debate).
There are other benefits for uniform limits - much cheaper to implement, less confusing for drivers, the introduction of a "new normal" that is easier to adhere to. I instinctively drive around my hometown at 20mph out of a habit developed in Edinburgh.
Yes, but you're being rational.
*Edinburghcityofenlightenment*
Of course, pedestrians could always try walking on the pavements, where they may find they go unmolested by cars proceeding at blistering speeds like 30mph.
Sadly, between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed by drivers mounting pavements. Perhaps 20mph limits would've saved some of those lives?
Find me the ones who mounted the pavement and killed someone whilst observing a 30mph limit and I'm interested.
Wales is apparently the only place in the world where driver reaction time and *the laws of physics* don't apply.
To bring it back to politics - this opposition to 20mph limits works as a disruptive online campaign run by CCHQ. It does not, however, work at a local campaign level - "higher speeds on your street!".
Of course it does.
Why not make the speed limit 4 miles per hour by your logic? Or require someone to walk in front of a vehicle carrying a flag?
30mph is not a high speed on a through road.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 mph will probably not.
No, that's why we don't have 40 as the limit.
Being hit by a car at 30 40 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 30 mph will probably not.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph in the 2020s has an approximately 90% survival rate.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Seems a bit harsh to send you out of class for that. Forres seems a perfectly normal answer. Like I said, religions are bastards.
I was sent out of class for knowing Orwell was in Burma rather than India too. It was a common pattern that rather coloured my view of education.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
The problem is that child road casualties occur pretty much uniformly across neighbourhoods, including on main roads. Check out the various STATS19 data based maps.
Adult casualties occur primarily at junctions (which is another argument for LTNs, but that's another debate).
There are other benefits for uniform limits - much cheaper to implement, less confusing for drivers, the introduction of a "new normal" that is easier to adhere to. I instinctively drive around my hometown at 20mph out of a habit developed in Edinburgh.
Yes, but you're being rational.
*Edinburghcityofenlightenment*
Of course, pedestrians could always try walking on the pavements, where they may find they go unmolested by cars proceeding at blistering speeds like 30mph.
Sadly, between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians were killed by drivers mounting pavements. Perhaps 20mph limits would've saved some of those lives?
Find me the ones who mounted the pavement and killed someone whilst observing a 30mph limit and I'm interested.
Wales is apparently the only place in the world where driver reaction time and *the laws of physics* don't apply.
To bring it back to politics - this opposition to 20mph limits works as a disruptive online campaign run by CCHQ. It does not, however, work at a local campaign level - "higher speeds on your street!".
Of course it does.
Why not make the speed limit 4 miles per hour by your logic? Or require someone to walk in front of a vehicle carrying a flag?
30mph is not a high speed on a through road.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 mph will probably not.
No, that's why we don't have 40 as the limit.
Being hit by a car at 30 40 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 30 mph will probably not.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph in the 2020s has an approximately 90% survival rate.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Perhaps the story of the "No Hellers" of the Appalachians might cheer her up. VERY religious Christians, but totally reject concept of Hell in afterlife, as contrary to Christ's sacrifice.
Addendum - Essentially, the No Hellers believe, that "Hell" is what we make ourselves & each other suffer here and now.
I like that - reminds me of an old Middle Eastern sect I learned about in RS lessons and admired: the saducees, I think - who believed that there was no afterlife, and that you should be good simply because God required it - or, as we would say nowadays, because it is the right thing to do.
Had a really dispiriting conversation earlier, with someone I care deeply about, on the subject of the Hamas executions of the two hostages. For me, the deliberate killing of the two hostages is qualitatively very different to unintended civilian casualties that are happening in Gaza during the Israeli war with Hamas. The intent to kill someone who is unarmed, and under your control, is so much more chilling, even though Israel are doubtless not taking as much care for Gazan civilian lives as they ought.
But my interlocutor did not see it this way. They felt that Israel almost wanted these executions - to justify its war, and because they weren't trying that hard to rescue hostages. They agree with the South African submission to the ICJ, that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza, rather than fighting a war of self-defence following the October 7th attack. They displayed wuite a degree of conspiratorial thinking about the October 7th attacks, that Israel purposefully provoked them, and seem to take it as read that Israel's war aim is to empty Gaza of all Palestinians, one way or another.
Am I hopelessly naive about Israel's intentions, or have I talked to someone who has swallowed the narrative of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?
I think a lot of the opponents of Donald Trump have been very self-indulgent in the way they've responded to his popularity. They've responded to him in ways that have made them feel good but were never going to do actually do anything to dent his popularity, whereas they could have done other things that wouldn't have felt so good but might have actually dealt with the underlying reasons for his popularity.
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.
Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.
I think a lot of the opponents of Donald Trump have been very self-indulgent in the way they've responded to his popularity. They've responded to him in ways that have made them feel good but were never going to do actually do anything to dent his popularity, whereas they could have done other things that wouldn't have felt so good but might have actually dealt with the underlying reasons for his popularity.
Yes but taking the vote away from people is the wrong thing to do, even if they are deplorable and vote for someone who is even more deplorable.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Seems a bit harsh to send you out of class for that. Forres seems a perfectly normal answer. Like I said, religions are bastards.
I was sent out of class for knowing Orwell was in Burma rather than India too. It was a common pattern that rather coloured my view of education.
eh? I thought I had some stupid teachers, but my stupid teachers at least largely knew they were stupid and weren't furious about being wrong.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
It's the idea of Heaven that terrorises me. Happy for ever and ever. How boring. A contradiction. At least Hell would be challenging.
The concepts of heaven and hell terrorise me equally. Their existence would mean I am fallible in my certainty that neither exist.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Seems a bit harsh to send you out of class for that. Forres seems a perfectly normal answer. Like I said, religions are bastards.
I'd say it's more that people are bastards, and in many cases that bastardry manifests in religion. But without religion, it just expresses in another way (see Trumpmania, to be topical.)
The harder question is whether religion makes things better or worse. Is a megalomaniac under God better than a megalomaniac doing what they will? I like to think so, but the jury is out.
And then there are the disturbingly holy people, who manage to be both otherworldly and sanely grounded. Though they tend not to talk about hell, or say very much at all. Disturbing.
🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.
Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.
If it’s a crisis like that, even more reason to have an able opposition from bench, outside the tent, who can ask probing questions of what you are up to.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
I used to know a quite senior child psychologist who (even 5-10 years ago) was seeing kids who'd been traumatised by Bad Things as they'd spent their whole lives in positive, engaged, happy environments. Then A Bad Thing happened in the real world in they didn't even have a thread to grasp.
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
Seems a bit harsh to send you out of class for that. Forres seems a perfectly normal answer. Like I said, religions are bastards.
I'd say it's more that people are bastards, and in many cases that bastardry manifests in religion. But without religion, it just expresses in another way (see Trumpmania, to be topical.)
The harder question is whether religion makes things better or worse. Is a megalomaniac under God better than a megalomaniac doing what they will? I like to think so, but the jury is out.
And then there are the disturbingly holy people, who manage to be both otherworldly and sanely grounded. Though they tend not to talk about hell, or say very much at all. Disturbing.
I think religion makes things worse because religion reinforces the idea that beliefs are divine and not to be questioned.
Scepticism is a healthy part of life. The scientific method works by encouraging scepticism.
Anything that challenges healthy scepticism is a belief system that both can't stand on its own merits, and is a weapon in the hands of megalomaniacs.
Andy_JS - I have been puzzled for years now that the obvious arguments against the Loser haven't been made by his opponents. For instance: If you follow the Loser, you are likely to lose your money, your health, or even your freedom. It wouldn't be that hard to create commercials showing real people who have been damaged in those ways.
There are competent political technicians, in both parties. I am baffled that neither party has taken this obvious step.
Or, this sight gag. In the US it was common -- and may still be, for all I know -- for kids to chant "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" at other kids. Making a balloon showing the Loser as a six year old, with pants on fire and bringing it to all his rallies shouldn't be that expensive.
(Sadly, you would want to bring security, too, to protect the balloon handlers.)
Had a really dispiriting conversation earlier, with someone I care deeply about, on the subject of the Hamas executions of the two hostages. For me, the deliberate killing of the two hostages is qualitatively very different to unintended civilian casualties that are happening in Gaza during the Israeli war with Hamas. The intent to kill someone who is unarmed, and under your control, is so much more chilling, even though Israel are doubtless not taking as much care for Gazan civilian lives as they ought.
But my interlocutor did not see it this way. They felt that Israel almost wanted these executions - to justify its war, and because they weren't trying that hard to rescue hostages. They agree with the South African submission to the ICJ, that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza, rather than fighting a war of self-defence following the October 7th attack. They displayed wuite a degree of conspiratorial thinking about the October 7th attacks, that Israel purposefully provoked them, and seem to take it as read that Israel's war aim is to empty Gaza of all Palestinians, one way or another.
Am I hopelessly naive about Israel's intentions, or have I talked to someone who has swallowed the narrative of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?
It's not necessary to engage in conspiratorial thinking in relation to October 7th to criticise Israel's actions before that event or since. Therefore to do so I do find suspicious and troubling, as it seems entirely unnecessary. It's a similar reason why I think anyone who tore down photos of hostages is definitely an anti-semite celebrating what happened even if they do not admit to that (which many do).
It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟
What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?
I understand the theory- Welby is treating the ongoing problems of the CofE as a management consultancy problem. And Vennells combined priesthood with top business experience. In a slightly different way, it's why Sarah Mullally got the gig instead.
But even without the Horizon issues, Vennells really would have been a very odd appointment. Not quite Hadrian VII, but pretty bonkers.
🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨
File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.
I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.
They think people are stupid.
You are better than that silly remark
Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review
I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland
I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.
Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.
BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.
I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.
TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies
We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
I am not denying it - just it is irrelevant to what is happening here in Wales
When the Welsh Labour government, Plaid, Transport bosses, local authorities and even @Mexicanpete and myself, who both actually live here in Wales and experience it, agree the implementation has been poor and a review is happening, then they are irrelevant to what is really happening here
It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟
What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?
Except Welby never gave her the job, Sarah Mullally became Bishop of London instead.
Whereas Vennells became CEO of the government owned PO under PM Cameron and Business Secretary Vince Cable
I spoke to God today and She said that She's ashamed What have I become? What have I done? I spoke to the devil today and he swears he's not to blame And I understood 'cause I feel the same
It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.
The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?
246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?
And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?
1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.
Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.
1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.
1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
…just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.
And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
1920s but NOT 1930s.
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.
Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.
If it’s a crisis like that, even more reason to have an able opposition from bench, outside the tent, who can ask probing questions of what you are up to.
Who said they didn't. Certainly an opposition, able or not.
Note that in 1940 (as in 1916) the UK formed a wartime Coalition government, with virtually no formal opposition. But pretty high level of "probing questions" to put it mildly.
In Australia, where the Australian Labor Party had previously split over conscription, with former Lab PM retaining office as part of mostly conservative coalition, the ALP resisted efforts to be recruited into a WW2 wartime coalition similar to UK's. And eventually emerged as governing party, just in time for war with Japan from December 1940.
Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.
I think the Tory stewardship of Ofcom has been excellent and has got the UK into being the leader in FTTP build. They didn't do it directly of course but they were very up for splitting off Openreach which certainly helped.
... after sneering at Labour for its broadband plans, they decided maybe Jezza was onto something after all.
Because corbyns broadband plans were shit...it was a one size fits all policy whereas I can choose a company that optimizes for what I need whether is down speed upspeed or ping....not what the state decided I needed, Jezza can go shove his head up his butt
It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟
What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?
Except Welby never gave her the job, Sarah Mullally became Bishop of London.
Whereas Vennells became CEO of the government owned PO under PM Cameron
Except this is late as 2017 interviewed for Bishop of London, post 2015 PO whistle blowers. Welby apparently lobbied for her, that’s why he is being told to resign.
In 2019 she got the gigs as non ex board member at the cabinet office AND Chair of an NHS Trust.
Imagine the last few weeks if she was Bishop of London!
Comments
'There before me was a frightful gnome with red-rimmed eyes and no eyelashes, no hair, greenish teeth, bad breath'
I must admit I get a bit obsessed with watching the counters move along the map.
If anybodies interested the tracking map is here:
https://live.opentracking.co.uk/spinerace24/
Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.
Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.
National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
Jon McGregor
@jon_mcgregor
If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:
https://t.co/ocJGe1TDOP
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/biden-leads-three-crucial-polls
@lizziedearden
🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨
@lizziedearden
UNHCR says the new "duty to remove" small boat migrants in the Illegal Migration Act (not yet triggered but core to govt plans), and Safety of Rwanda Bill, have worsened the situation and also violate the Refugee Convention
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/engage-nottingham-hub/open-consultations/202425-budget-savings-proposals/#:~:text=Nottingham City Council has highlighted,major impact on its services.
Dark times my friends, dark times.
It's interesting (possibly) to note that only four individuals have won elections for LAB
Ramsay McDonald (1929 and er 1931 sort of)
Attlee (1945 and 1950)
Wilson (1964 1966 and 2 x 1974)
Blair (1997 2001 2005)
Can KEIR make it no 5??
But most caucuses will take 2-3 hours, just to check IDs, register new voters or change reg to GOP, although this will likely begin before 7pm most locations. Also will be speeches, also nomination and election of people to be delegates to next step in process.
Also, they will (or at least should) keep proceeding open long enough so folks have time to vote; campaigns will likely encourage this, as delegates will be apportioned based on TOTAL statewide vote.
The tension between fear of 1992 and some kind of Wilson we are the future/white heat campaign is palpable.
Sounds like brutal putsch. So which side were the good guys?
I don’t know much, but weren’t the liberals very “woke” in the late 19th century, anti monarchy and Republican? So the liberal imperial were the good guys, distancing/modernizing the liberal party from those stupid wishywashy corbynesque ways, and the voters loved it?
There's an email exchange between us which you say was an agreement to cancel it and I say left the issue hanging with no agreed resolution.
We don't want to argue about it for 10 months so what to do?
An idea. Is there a PB mechanism for betting dispute resolution? Eg how about the facts (inc that email exchange) are reviewed by somebody trusted by both of us and au fait with betting etiquette and they opine? We agree to go with what they say.
He has helpfully stepped up several times
I suggest you present the facts to him and see if he is willing to judge a case, once again?
Fuck knows why we even pay a moment’s notice to these leftoid woke ngo shyster-lawyers, who are full of anti western hatred
Darbyshire stumbles and seems lost for words briefly.
Asquith, Gray and Haldane were Liberal imperialists; they wanted to tap Campbell-Bannerman's electoral appeal (years afterward) of the Boer War, then grab the gusto of government for themselves, on grounds that C-B was too old (and int the way). But their Leader turned tables on them (with the stout bucking-up of his wife) and won, by calling their bluff (to not join his govt).
Within a few years, C-B was dead, and Asquith was finally PM . . . with Lloyd George looking over HIS shoulder . . .
There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_United_Kingdom_general_election
The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
LIVE in News at 10
- Govt to face down rebels and say ‘no amendments required’ as offer package of measures (more judges/streamlining appeal cases)
- Party atmosphere dire. Some MPs insisting anyone on payroll backing amendments must be sacked
- Levido to MPs: The Q is do you want to win?
Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
Why, that would be The End of Democracy!
Edit : I want 2 week elections. And lots of gin - make it the law that the candidates can spend as much as they like on free alcohol for the voters.
#NewGeorgianTimes
Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.
First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.
Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.
But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.
Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Colonel "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.
:: awaits Telegraph columnist offer ::
A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
I wonder about the arrangements in the Libyan Coastguards Migrant Employment facilities, though.
Should we send in @Leon to check?
At the moment our politicians can still claim the occasional bit of self respect, but in the GOP?
First rule of the internet is that people aren't necessarily who they say they are, or even anyone at all.
Remember folks - this is the 3rd reading to send the bill to be torn apart in the Lords. Who we already know will gut it and send it back. Not can the Commons insist on primacy. This bill is contrary to the manifesto…
And so are you.
Yes there is always some new waste to be found, some silly project or investment, but the public paints that as the main issue, which is akin to blaming the housing crisis on a lack of brownfield development - it hasn't helped, but is far from the biggest problem, and people don't really address it in any case.
Except for @SeanT
Made me quite sad.
Though your post is also reminding me of being at Sunday school and the teacher asking where our families came from. I said 'Forres!". And the teacher smiled and told me I meant "A Forest". I said "No - Forres!". And I got a slightly sterner explanation that I meant 'a forest'. "No - Forres - in Scotland!".
Which got me sent out of class. Which was also my last visit to Sunday school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Baptist_Universalist
Addendum - Essentially, the No Hellers believe, that "Hell" is what we make ourselves & each other suffer here and now.
Of course, there's no guarantee she would have gotten over the line, with enough votes to push through something that unpopular, had she not included it in the campaign, other things would have come up, but it was a mistaken attempt at honesty.
But my interlocutor did not see it this way. They felt that Israel almost wanted these executions - to justify its war, and because they weren't trying that hard to rescue hostages. They agree with the South African submission to the ICJ, that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza, rather than fighting a war of self-defence following the October 7th attack. They displayed wuite a degree of conspiratorial thinking about the October 7th attacks, that Israel purposefully provoked them, and seem to take it as read that Israel's war aim is to empty Gaza of all Palestinians, one way or another.
Am I hopelessly naive about Israel's intentions, or have I talked to someone who has swallowed the narrative of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?
Being hit by a car at 30 40 mph will probably kill you. Being hit by a car at 20 30 mph will probably not.
Being hit by a car at 30 mph in the 2020s has an approximately 90% survival rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(United_Kingdom)
Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Australia_Party
And that won't do. Won't do at all.
It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟
What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?
The harder question is whether religion makes things better or worse. Is a megalomaniac under God better than a megalomaniac doing what they will? I like to think so, but the jury is out.
And then there are the disturbingly holy people, who manage to be both otherworldly and sanely grounded. Though they tend not to talk about hell, or say very much at all. Disturbing.
Whereas Vennells became CEO of the government owned PO under PM Cameron and Business Secretary Vince Cable
Scepticism is a healthy part of life. The scientific method works by encouraging scepticism.
Anything that challenges healthy scepticism is a belief system that both can't stand on its own merits, and is a weapon in the hands of megalomaniacs.
There are competent political technicians, in both parties. I am baffled that neither party has taken this obvious step.
Or, this sight gag. In the US it was common -- and may still be, for all I know -- for kids to chant "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" at other kids. Making a balloon showing the Loser as a six year old, with pants on fire and bringing it to all his rallies shouldn't be that expensive.
(Sadly, you would want to bring security, too, to protect the balloon handlers.)
Really worth a listen/watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weH--Eo_DQs.
But even without the Horizon issues, Vennells really would have been a very odd appointment. Not quite Hadrian VII, but pretty bonkers.
I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
When the Welsh Labour government, Plaid, Transport bosses, local authorities and even @Mexicanpete and myself, who both actually live here in Wales and experience it, agree the implementation has been poor and a review is happening, then they are irrelevant to what is really happening here
I spoke to God today and She said that She's ashamed
What have I become?
What have I done?
I spoke to the devil today and he swears he's not to blame
And I understood 'cause I feel the same
Note that in 1940 (as in 1916) the UK formed a wartime Coalition government, with virtually no formal opposition. But pretty high level of "probing questions" to put it mildly.
In Australia, where the Australian Labor Party had previously split over conscription, with former Lab PM retaining office as part of mostly conservative coalition, the ALP resisted efforts to be recruited into a WW2 wartime coalition similar to UK's. And eventually emerged as governing party, just in time for war with Japan from December 1940.
Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.
In 2019 she got the gigs as non ex board member at the cabinet office AND Chair of an NHS Trust.
Imagine the last few weeks if she was Bishop of London!