@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
Importers have warned that plans for goods inspectors at the Brexit border to clock off at 7pm risk creating chaos.
Industry bosses have urged ministers to address the “crazy” situation, which will result in almost all checkpoints being shut overnight, amid fears it will affect fresh food supplies.
It will mean that trucks bringing produce into the country through southern ports, including Dover, will be redirected to a single processing facility in Kent.
The warning was issued as long-delayed post-Brexit border controls on large quantities of “medium risk” goods, including fresh food, finally came into force on Tuesday.
It's almost like a Civil Servant was given the task of how could we most screw things up in a way that looks accidental and the joke entry was implemented.
It is of course axiomatic in the Brexit debate that every piece of news is AWFUL FOR BREXIT BRITAIN.
You have that THE WRONG WAY ROUND.
It really enhances the credibility of your argument when you chop half of the other person's post with zero need to save any space.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
You've made this point before.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it. There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues. There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political. Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup. Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak. You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
How well does it map on to the old Avon county?
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
The vast majority of western England is excluded in fact. It’s just the Bristol metro area. Utterly bonkers that it was named as it was.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
How well does it map on to the old Avon county?
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
You've made this point before.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it. There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues. There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political. Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup. Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak. You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
I'm a big fan of a good old British muddle to account for unique circumstances - look at Orkney and Shetland, Isle of Wight, Ynys Mon, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar for carve outs from general rules for MPs - so I wouldn't ever want total uniformity and lack of flexibility. Forcing massive mayoralties on regions it does not really work on, or adding regional governors with inconsistent powers in different shire county areas would be just dumb.
But I do think you can have that whilst also setting a basic default setting which is more appropriate and effective than what we presently have. I do think district and county set ups have had their day for example.
But to go one step further, just look at the continued existence not only of parish councils, but parish meetings where there is no council. People have been arguing about what such bodies should be for, and whether there should be a minimum or maximum size to them, since their creation in 1896.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
How well does it map on to the old Avon county?
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
(Ducks, runs and hides.)
Would have need North Somerset as well. If it had, Greater Bristol would have been ideal.
Certainly whoever did the wikipedia page for Avon (Anabobazina?) would agree
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
The Almanac of British Politics was often entertaining on this. The author had a particular fondness for poetic or at least neat, tidy names. I remember when Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland replaced Langbaurgh, he lamented 'an unwieldy name replacing an unpronounceable one' - with the implication that 'unpronounceable' was not necessarily a negative.
Some of my favourite constituency names have included: Great Grimsby (why Great? It's not 'Greater Grimsby' as that would include Cleethorpes') Old Bexley and Sidcup. Westmorland and Lonsdale The Hartlepools Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (curious indecision by the commision there) Penrith and the Border Batley and Spen Sheffield Brightside Glasgow Garscadden Liverpool West Derby Down South (amusingly vague if you don't realise it's in NI) Liverpool Scotland Exchange (suggestive of all sorts of mysteries) Liverpool Everton (possibly the only constituency ever to name in full two professional football teams?) Glasgow St. Rollox
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Sir Peter Soulsby in Leicester fell out with a group of Labour councillors when they tried the same.
Nether were under serious threat otherwise.
Re: The Bristol mayor, the issue with Bristol is that it is a pleasant city to live, which means it attracts lots of nimby types down from London. This means it is impossible to get any infrastructure built. So the mayor came in as the voters were fed up with the councillors and now it's going again as the mayor isn't seen to have done any better.
The other thing that doesn't help is underbounding to the East and North, which then leads to conflict with the other councils e.g. with S Gloucs over the failed supertram.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
How well does it map on to the old Avon county?
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
(Ducks, runs and hides.)
Would have need North Somerset as well. If it had, Greater Bristol would have been ideal.
Certainly whoever did the wikipedia page for Avon (Anabobazina?) would agree
Lol! Nothing to do with me, but coincidentally I did check it out. Was surprised to read Greater Bristol was first proposed in the 1800s. And we ended up with the West of England Combined Authority, more than a century later. Brilliant work.
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
When I was trying for selection in 1996, Broxtowe was the 18th place I tried, and I'd never heard of it (it's not a place name at all). So I rang up the CLP secretary (Dennis Skinner's sister as it turned out) and asked "Where are you?" She laughed heartily - "That's a good start, duck!"
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
The Almanac of British Politics was often entertaining on this. The author had a particular fondness for poetic or at least neat, tidy names. I remember when Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland replaced Langbaurgh, he lamented 'an unwieldy name replacing an unpronounceable one' - with the implication that 'unpronounceable' was not necessarily a negative.
Some of my favourite constituency names have included: Great Grimsby (why Great? It's not 'Greater Grimsby' as that would include Cleethorpes') Old Bexley and Sidcup. Westmorland and Lonsdale The Hartlepools Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (curious indecision by the commision there) Penrith and the Border Batley and Spen Sheffield Brightside Glasgow Garscadden Liverpool West Derby Down South (amusingly vague if you don't realise it's in NI) Liverpool Scotland Exchange (suggestive of all sorts of mysteries) Liverpool Everton (possibly the only constituency ever to name in full two professional football teams?) Glasgow St. Rollox
I like the bemoaning of ones where there seats with a city and a cardinal direction, but with one missing, so you might have a north, south, west, but no east. Or a central and a south, but no north.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
The Almanac of British Politics was often entertaining on this. The author had a particular fondness for poetic or at least neat, tidy names. I remember when Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland replaced Langbaurgh, he lamented 'an unwieldy name replacing an unpronounceable one' - with the implication that 'unpronounceable' was not necessarily a negative.
Some of my favourite constituency names have included: Great Grimsby (why Great? It's not 'Greater Grimsby' as that would include Cleethorpes') Old Bexley and Sidcup. Westmorland and Lonsdale The Hartlepools Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (curious indecision by the commision there) Penrith and the Border Batley and Spen Sheffield Brightside Glasgow Garscadden Liverpool West Derby Down South (amusingly vague if you don't realise it's in NI) Liverpool Scotland Exchange (suggestive of all sorts of mysteries) Liverpool Everton (possibly the only constituency ever to name in full two professional football teams?) Glasgow St. Rollox
Some good ones there!
I hadn’t heard of Liverpool Everton.
Tyne Bridge was a good one. Think it’s been abolished.
Don't knock it. Value bet. Worse case scenario you lose £20. Best case you get £400 plus your stake. Either way you get a good anecdote.
Since £20 is the cost of a sandwich and coffee in central London these days, I'll just have to manage without any food or drink for a few hours next time I'm in the capital to get the money back. 😊
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
When I was trying for selection in 1996, Broxtowe was the 18th place I tried, and I'd never heard of it (it's not a place name at all). So I rang up the CLP secretary (Dennis Skinner's sister as it turned out) and asked "Where are you?" She laughed heartily - "That's a good start, duck!"
Squirm.
You can be forgiven for not knowing where the rather mysterious Broxtowe is. Apparently up until the moment Frank Field bought his ticket for his selection meeting, he thought Birkenhead was in the north east.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
When I was trying for selection in 1996, Broxtowe was the 18th place I tried, and I'd never heard of it (it's not a place name at all). So I rang up the CLP secretary (Dennis Skinner's sister as it turned out) and asked "Where are you?" She laughed heartily - "That's a good start, duck!"
Squirm.
The current (and soon to be former) MP for Broxtowe was a councillor in Wiltshire at the time of his election, so he may have had to ask the same question.
IIRC Broxtowe, confusingly, is also the name of a suburb in the north of Nottingham. But it doesn't share any terrain with the constituency of that name.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
There is a growing trend of shitty generic parliamentary names as well. You have ones historically named after the main settlement for example, and when new ones are created you get a big moan from people about their name not being included, and because it's easier to concede on such a point the BCE ends with a bunch of boring ones like Wiltshire South West.
I'm not sure we want every seat to have super long names like in Scotland ('Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey' anyone?), but seats named for their largest or a couple of the largest settlements are more interesting and more informative, since people referencing an area will refer to the major settlements or other features.
The Almanac of British Politics was often entertaining on this. The author had a particular fondness for poetic or at least neat, tidy names. I remember when Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland replaced Langbaurgh, he lamented 'an unwieldy name replacing an unpronounceable one' - with the implication that 'unpronounceable' was not necessarily a negative.
Some of my favourite constituency names have included: Great Grimsby (why Great? It's not 'Greater Grimsby' as that would include Cleethorpes') Old Bexley and Sidcup. Westmorland and Lonsdale The Hartlepools Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (curious indecision by the commision there) Penrith and the Border Batley and Spen Sheffield Brightside Glasgow Garscadden Liverpool West Derby Down South (amusingly vague if you don't realise it's in NI) Liverpool Scotland Exchange (suggestive of all sorts of mysteries) Liverpool Everton (possibly the only constituency ever to name in full two professional football teams?) Glasgow St. Rollox
Some good ones there!
I hadn’t heard of Liverpool Everton.
Tyne Bridge was a good one. Think it’s been abolished.
I must admit I only learned of the bottom three while looking through the wikipedia page of absolished constituencies - I was trying to recall all the Glasgow ones of my youth (like Gardscadden and Shettleston), almost all of which were poetic.
IIRC Broxtowe, confusingly, is also the name of a suburb in the north of Nottingham. But it doesn't share any terrain with the constituency of that name.
It is, it’s in the northwest of the city but not actually in Nick’s old seat. Odd.
IIRC Broxtowe, confusingly, is also the name of a suburb in the north of Nottingham. But it doesn't share any terrain with the constituency of that name.
Yes, that's right. ISTR Broxtowe was one of the old hundreds of Nottinghamshire - though confusingly again, one which was, I think, largely south of the Trent. The Broxtowe estate (which you will know from the incidental shots if you have ever watched police interceptors in Nottingham) and the 1974 District were both, separately, named after it.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
You've made this point before.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it. There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues. There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political. Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup. Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak. You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
They change local administrative areas so often in Britain (unlike in France) that I doubt most people could care one way or the other. It's a real sign of long-term decline and absence of "purpose". Bureaucrats invest in permanent "review" and change so as to stand still. Most changes probably won't last longer than about 10 years. "A unit doesn't work without the support of its population"? But it's not as if anyone would go on strike over a name. I did once meet someone who got his knickers in a twist about Bournemouth being in Dorset rather than Hampshire where he felt it belonged, but he needed to get a life. He wasn't a Yorkshireman, because everyone in Yorkshire knows that Hull will always be in that fine county whatever anyone else says. Surely naming isn't as important as it is for airports? I'm not sure street names matter much either.
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
Okay I'll bite: "TTT"?
You know T... T... T...
There are several possibilities some of which are rude. "That Tory T***" seems to fit. But I was trying to find out which specific words CR were referring to
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
You've made this point before.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it. There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues. There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political. Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup. Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak. You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
They change local administrative areas so often in Britain (unlike in France) that I doubt most people could care one way or the other. It's a real sign of long-term decline and absence of "purpose". Bureaucrats invest in permanent "review" and change so as to stand still. Most changes probably won't last longer than about 10 years. "A unit doesn't work without the support of its population"? But it's not as if anyone would go on strike over a name. I did once meet someone who got his knickers in a twist about Bournemouth being in Dorset rather than Hampshire where he felt it belonged, but he needed to get a life. He wasn't a Yorkshireman, because everyone in Yorkshire knows that Hull will always be in that fine county whatever anyone else says. Surely naming isn't as important as it is for airports? I'm not sure street names matter much either.
I'm someone who does care about things like boundaries and names and governance structures. But I do so as a matter of general interest at least. Most normal people may barely know what the local authority arrangements in their area even are, and so if they object to going unitary, or becoming or not becoming a mayoralty, it's a bit like being a fairweather friend of electoral reform, and not indicative of that strong an opinion.
So long as its been properly thought through once you do it people will quickly get used to it, if they even notice - I saw an example once where there was a big stink about a local change stirred up by local politicians, then the change went ahead, and even some of the local politicians somehow failed to notice when it came into effect as they asked when it would happen after it already had!
Street names on the other hand do matter, if you've ever missed a parcel or takeout delivery because you live in an area with InsertName Road/Close/Street in close proximity and things constantly go astray.
Yes it;s GB News... But check out this excellent 20 min interview with the amazing and very brave, Rosie Duffield MP, (I'm sure she'll retain her Canterbury Parliamentary Constituency with a much increased majority at Election 24... But I just hope she'll be safe when Labour are actually in government 🙏 )
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
Based on the university of the same name I assume. (Well, they might have changed the name since I last checked, which was quite a long time ago).
I suspect that's not the reason. I expect it's because there's no name for the area covered by the mayoralty that anyone might actually use, and they didn't want people to confuse it with the other Bristol mayor, so they came up with something random, or a placeholder that they never got around to changing.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
How well does it map on to the old Avon county?
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
(Ducks, runs and hides.)
Would have need North Somerset as well. If it had, Greater Bristol would have been ideal.
Certainly whoever did the wikipedia page for Avon (Anabobazina?) would agree
Lol! Nothing to do with me, but coincidentally I did check it out. Was surprised to read Greater Bristol was first proposed in the 1800s. And we ended up with the West of England Combined Authority, more than a century later. Brilliant work.
Quite a few of the “metros” in the UK are not mono-centric, like London, Manchester and - I’d argue, Bristol - are.
Leeds is really Leeds-Bradford, and the West Yorks metro is really “Leeds-Bradford, with Wakefield and Huddersfield”. Planners may wish it were one agglomeration, but travel-to-work analysis shows it is functions as four or five separate economic geographies today.
Same is true with South Yorkshire. West Midlands is really Birmingham, Wolves and Dudley - and Coventry, although at least the first three centres overlap.
Greater Newcastle is really Newcastle-Sunderland.
Nottingham and Derby don’t really have anything to do with one another at all.
I think some of these Frankensteins will go the way of “Avon”.
Greater Manchester includes Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Bury, Eccles, Trafford, Altrincham. I don't see how that's any different from the way that Greater Birmingham includes Dudley, Wolverhampton, Solihull, Walsall, Coventry, West Bromwich, Stourbridge. I'm trying to think of a British city which doesn't include a lot of other large towns nearby in this way. Aberdeen maybe, but that's not a very large place by comparison. Cardiff perhaps.
Greater Manchester includes Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Bury, Eccles, Trafford, Altrincham. I don't see how that's any different from the way that Greater Birmingham includes Dudley, Wolverhampton, Solihull, Walsall, Coventry, West Bromwich, Stourbridge. I'm trying to think of a British city which doesn't include a lot of other large towns nearby in this way. Aberdeen maybe, but that's not a very large place by comparison. Cardiff perhaps.
If you have a look a a map, Manchester sits like a hub at the centre, and all the surrounding towns clearly operate as supporting nodes.
It’s also a single economic geography, per “travel to work area” analysis, ie, people in Eccles primarily commute into Manchester.
Whereas West Midlands metro is really four separate hubs: Birmigham, Wolverhampton and Dudley, which admittedly blend into one another; and Coventry, which is quite separate. West Midlands is also four different economic geographies, ie people who live in Wolverhampton don’t typically commute into Birmigham.
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be run as a single metro with a metro mayor, but it seems to be it’s a different kind of “thing” to Manchester.
The West Yorkshire settlements have even less to do with one another than the West Midlands ones do, and as I said Nottingham and Derby basically nothing save they are neighbours.
The evolution of cheap, mass produced, lethal drones in the war in Ukraine is happening scarily fast.
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1785453363452092896 This video is the most terrifying drone video I've ever seen. The absolute terror of this. Look closely at what is happening. Drones are dive bombing foxholes and trenches one at a time systematically destroying them across the line in quick succession with pinpoint accuracy...
...These are not fpv drones. these are dive bombers operating at full speed. they are diving in probably at like 80-100kph and dropping the bomb and pulling up to keep flying away at the same speed. Look closely, you see the drones approach and fly away
Ukraine plans to build a million drones this year; Russia likely something similar.
It's perhaps analogous to the mass production of the Kalashnikov early in the Cold War. That step change in cheaply available powerful weaponry for anyone who wanted it had global consequences. This likely more so.
Quite a few of the “metros” in the UK are not mono-centric, like London, Manchester and - I’d argue, Bristol - are.
Leeds is really Leeds-Bradford, and the West Yorks metro is really “Leeds-Bradford, with Wakefield and Huddersfield”. Planners may wish it were one agglomeration, but travel-to-work analysis shows it is functions as four or five separate economic geographies today.
Same is true with South Yorkshire. West Midlands is really Birmingham, Wolves and Dudley - and Coventry, although at least the first three centres overlap.
Greater Newcastle is really Newcastle-Sunderland.
Nottingham and Derby don’t really have anything to do with one another at all.
I think some of these Frankensteins will go the way of “Avon”.
There must be at least 10 different economic geographies in the East Midlands combined authority. Including... - heard this from a friend who does lettings - the fabled Retford to London commute !
Yes it;s GB News... But check out this excellent 20 min interview with the amazing and very brave, Rosie Duffield MP, (I'm sure she'll retain her Canterbury Parliamentary Constituency with a much increased majority at Election 24... But I just hope she'll be safe when Labour are actually in government 🙏 )
GB News is the only broadcaster to have covered this in any depth. Andrew Doyle (gay man, as it happens) interviews people from differing perspectives -both proponents and opponents. When the Cass report came out the BBC had their LGBT producer coauthor their summary along with Hugh Pym.
Yes it;s GB News... But check out this excellent 20 min interview with the amazing and very brave, Rosie Duffield MP, (I'm sure she'll retain her Canterbury Parliamentary Constituency with a much increased majority at Election 24... But I just hope she'll be safe when Labour are actually in government 🙏 )
GB News is the only broadcaster to have covered this in any depth. Andrew Doyle (gay man, as it happens) interviews people from differing perspectives -both proponents and opponents. When the Cass report came out the BBC had their LGBT producer coauthor their summary along with Hugh Pym.
I suspect his vote will mainly come from Muslim voters but we shall see
He’s a Sikh, is there much evidence of cross voting between Sikhs and Muslims?
I thought that, but I suppose it could still be argued that the majority of Workers Party voters would be Muslim, given Galloway’s agenda. There’s a lot of Sikhs in Southwell, but would they necessarily vote for the workers Party?
I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't call the WP policies especially Muslim in flavour. They include
* referendum on Net Zero * referendum on NATO membership * 0% income tax up to £21K * stonking IHT on estates of >£10M * one secular Palestinian state
I suspect his vote will mainly come from Muslim voters but we shall see
He’s a Sikh, is there much evidence of cross voting between Sikhs and Muslims?
I thought that, but I suppose it could still be argued that the majority of Workers Party voters would be Muslim, given Galloway’s agenda. There’s a lot of Sikhs in Southwell, but would they necessarily vote for the workers Party?
I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't call the WP policies especially Muslim in flavour. They include
* referendum on Net Zero * referendum on NATO membership * 0% income tax up to £21K * stonking IHT on estates of >£10M * one secular Palestinian state
One of those, isn’t like all the others.
Yes, there's already a stonking inheritance tax on estates over £10m
Looking like Ferrari, setting up a dream team with Lewis for the new ‘26 regulations. Announcement to come in Miami on Thursday.
In different F1 news, today is the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayrton Senna, something that affected me profoundly at the time as a teenager. One of the all-time great drivers.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Was the Bristol mayor a metro mayor though? I’m talking about those specifically. The borough mayors are a pointless exercise, and should be abolished. The metro mayoralties are a great idea and their powers should be enhanced - and the mayoralties named after the main city: Greater Birmingham, Greater Nottingham etc etc.
Ah yes. Well, Bristol at one point had three mayors - the Lord Mayor ceremonial position, the City 'Executive' Mayor, and the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, which includes BaNES and South Gloucestershire. Turns out the latter is some Labour chap I've never heard of.
I imagine they'd moan about calling it Greater Bristol, though it is what it is (I think others they wanted included did not agree to going in, which is part of the issue with these inconsistent devolution arrangements).
They should be forced to call all of them after the main big city: Greater Bristol, Greater Newcastle, Greater Leeds, Greater Nottingham etc.
The fact that the Manchester and London metro mayoralties are the only ones actually named for the city is bizarre.
You've made this point before.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it. There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues. There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political. Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup. Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak. You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
They change local administrative areas so often in Britain (unlike in France) that I doubt most people could care one way or the other. It's a real sign of long-term decline and absence of "purpose". Bureaucrats invest in permanent "review" and change so as to stand still. Most changes probably won't last longer than about 10 years. "A unit doesn't work without the support of its population"? But it's not as if anyone would go on strike over a name. I did once meet someone who got his knickers in a twist about Bournemouth being in Dorset rather than Hampshire where he felt it belonged, but he needed to get a life. He wasn't a Yorkshireman, because everyone in Yorkshire knows that Hull will always be in that fine county whatever anyone else says. Surely naming isn't as important as it is for airports? I'm not sure street names matter much either.
I must say, I couldn't care less about airports but I do care very much about my county.
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
Okay I'll bite: "TTT"?
You know T... T... T...
There are several possibilities some of which are rude. "That Tory T***" seems to fit. But I was trying to find out which specific words CR were referring to
Can anyone explain to me, preferably sensibly and with reasoned explanation, why polls seem to converge in the immediate days prior to an election? Is it because Don’t Knows drop away? Or … what?
This may not be the best example because they’re local elections but it so often seems to happen just before the vote itself.
Quite a few of the “metros” in the UK are not mono-centric, like London, Manchester and - I’d argue, Bristol - are.
Leeds is really Leeds-Bradford, and the West Yorks metro is really “Leeds-Bradford, with Wakefield and Huddersfield”. Planners may wish it were one agglomeration, but travel-to-work analysis shows it is functions as four or five separate economic geographies today.
Same is true with South Yorkshire. West Midlands is really Birmingham, Wolves and Dudley - and Coventry, although at least the first three centres overlap.
Greater Newcastle is really Newcastle-Sunderland.
Nottingham and Derby don’t really have anything to do with one another at all.
I think some of these Frankensteins will go the way of “Avon”.
My dream journal this morning reads in part…
“…had argument with Mr Jopling [my old history teacher] re. whether to use pre-1974 county boundaries on PPT illustrating school assembly talk on Pilgrimage of Grace. Took taxi to go round and round block emailing…”
I put this down to not getting out much and SSRI discontinuation.
@Beyond_Topline Ooft. Labour candidate 14 pts ahead in the North Yorkshire race, apparently - 41% to 27%
This area voted Conservative by 30 pts at the last General election (55%-25% ish).
I think the most useful mayoral races will be the ones like this where there are no incumbents. Mayor's seem to benefit whatever their party if incumbent.
It’s an interesting point. I think the metro mayors - of all parties - have been, by and large, pretty good. There haven’t been any calamities (Houchen TBC) and actually most have been reasonable figureheads for their cities. Khan gets slagged off on here, but he’s competent without ever being inspiring, and has a decent cv. I’m led to believe that Street in Birmingham is similar.
The Bristol Mayor has seen his mayoralty abolished by referendum, but I don't know whether his personal performance played any role in that outcome or just general apathy towards such posts in many areas - I think Bristol were the only area that (narrowly) voted to have a mayor when referendums were held in 10 cities in 2012 (a bit embarrassing to the government as I recall), though the government then brought in a bunch regardless.
Sir Peter Soulsby in Leicester fell out with a group of Labour councillors when they tried the same.
Nether were under serious threat otherwise.
Re: The Bristol mayor, the issue with Bristol is that it is a pleasant city to live, which means it attracts lots of nimby types down from London. This means it is impossible to get any infrastructure built. So the mayor came in as the voters were fed up with the councillors and now it's going again as the mayor isn't seen to have done any better.
The other thing that doesn't help is underbounding to the East and North, which then leads to conflict with the other councils e.g. with S Gloucs over the failed supertram.
Not sure the "NIMBY types down from London" has much to do with it. Firstly, it's a stretch to say NIMBYism is a peculiar Londoner trait. If it is then it doesn't appear to stop infrastructure from being built in London - a city which is home to rather more Londoners than Bristol is. Secondly, the bit of Bristol you're describing with a load of professionals who moved from London is a pretty small triangle from the centre to the Downs. The vast majority of Bristol is nothing like that, and is where you'd ideally be doing the infrastructure projects.
Your point about the boundaries being odd is right. South Gloucestershire is a particularly odd council area - a clutch of small towns and rural areas plus, for no apparent reason, some suburbs of Bristol. I guess that's the point of the West of England Combined Authority, but indeed it was also the point of Avon which it essentially recreates. The metro mayors for that region haven't been deeply exciting - Tim Bowles was a bit of a nonentity and Dan Norris is an ex-MP hankering for a rematch against Jacob Rees-Mogg, who unseated him.
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
Sunak is very British, a classic wealthy and clueless elitist. Inventing some explanation that he's not is just a fantasy.
Today Kate Forbes voted FOR Stage 1 of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) bill. Humza Yousaf was absent. Just as he was for the final vote on equal marriage. So tell me again why Kate Forbes is being is vilified for her faith…
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
Okay I'll bite: "TTT"?
You know T... T... T...
There are several possibilities some of which are rude. "That Tory T***" seems to fit. But I was trying to find out which specific words CR were referring to
The Tedious Tactical Triangulator (TTT).
Surely, we've all learnt this by now?
Oh we've all learned the *concept*. It was the *acronym* I was asking about.
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
Sunak is very British, a classic wealthy and clueless elitist. Inventing some explanation that he's not is just a fantasy.
I think this is missing the point I’m making. Perhaps it would have been better to state that his policies are profoundly un-British, but I advisedly linked it back to a certain kind of businessman one encounters. There’s an old school Master-Slave mentality, rooted in caste but really a dog-eats-dog attitude. Which coming from someone who, as you say, is a classic wealthy (and clueless) elitist really sticks in the throat.
This country has a welfare state of which I’m proud. It’s one of the few remaining things I am proud about in Britain and I’m buggered if that little shit is going to further unravel it with his ruthless Singaporean goal.
Can anyone explain to me, preferably sensibly and with reasoned explanation, why polls seem to converge in the immediate days prior to an election? Is it because Don’t Knows drop away? Or … what?
This may not be the best example because they’re local elections but it so often seems to happen just before the vote itself.
Ta muchly.
xx
There are many different explanations for herding
* They deal with swing back differently prior to the election campaign, but when the election is announced they change their methodology * Dan Hodges insists that herding is a conscious conspiracy (it isn't). But I think it's simply a function of all trying to get it right and cross-pollinating techniques * possibly the fact that they have to specially treat those who have already voted by post?
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
This will be my last post on the subject or to you.
For whatever noble, high falutin', dare I say uber woke reason your comment yesterday was vile. And unambiguously racist.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is British but from immigrant stock. Recent immigrant stock that is because few of us are not at some point in history.
You have just told them that they are not properly British, that they in your eyes can't escape a characteristic from their "own" culture and moreover that there is a defining characteristic of "their", and of British culture.
It is exactly the same language as the most virulent racists use to other such people.
To borrow from the PO Inquiry vernacular, you are either a racist or a moron and I don't care which it is.
So you can take your Archbishop John Sentamu told mes and your don't you realises and you can fuck right off.
Can anyone explain to me, preferably sensibly and with reasoned explanation, why polls seem to converge in the immediate days prior to an election? Is it because Don’t Knows drop away? Or … what?
This may not be the best example because they’re local elections but it so often seems to happen just before the vote itself.
Ta muchly.
xx
There are many different explanations for herding
* They deal with swing back differently prior to the election campaign, but when the election is announced they change their methodology * Dan Hodges insists that herding is a conscious conspiracy (it isn't). But I think it's simply a function of all trying to get it right and cross-pollinating techniques * possibly the fact that they have to specially treat those who have already voted by post?
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
Sunak isn't evil, and neither is his agenda as you describe. Your posts yesterday where you attacked his origins I thought were pretty disgusting, and profoundly not what this country is about.
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
Sunak isn't evil, and neither is his agenda as you describe. Your posts yesterday where you attacked his origins I thought were pretty disgusting, and profoundly not what this country is about.
So, no, I'm not listening.
You weren’t in the first place … so ‘meh
And, yes, he is evil. What he has said about those with disabilities, including mental illness, is pure unadulterated evil
Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality
😶
I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?
Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.
Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe
At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing
We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.
Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
Sunak is very British, a classic wealthy and clueless elitist. Inventing some explanation that he's not is just a fantasy.
I think this is missing the point I’m making. Perhaps it would have been better to state that his policies are profoundly un-British, but I advisedly linked it back to a certain kind of businessman one encounters. There’s an old school Master-Slave mentality, rooted in caste but really a dog-eats-dog attitude. Which coming from someone who, as you say, is a classic wealthy (and clueless) elitist really sticks in the throat.
This country has a welfare state of which I’m proud. It’s one of the few remaining things I am proud about in Britain and I’m buggered if that little shit is going to further unravel it with his ruthless Singaporean goal.
I don't think this is appropriate.
There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of Sunak but anti-Hindu stereotyping should not be part of it.
Would the Scottish Greens support a Kate Forbes led government?
Facially i'd say no. What would she offer that they want?
Well it depends if the Greens are sufficiently hypocritical to burn all their other policies on the altar of a single one: independence. If they are, and Forbes is sufficiently hypocritical to abandon her own religious principles, then an agreement could be cobbled together.
The problem is that independence is no immediate prospect, so as with Useless, any new SNP government will need to choose how to run Scotland as it is, rather, than how they dream it should be. Thus, even if some kind of agreement of hypocrisy can be made, it will soon be torpedoed by reality. To govern is to choose.
At least Swinney has the blessing of the Glasgow mafia at the heart of the SNP, which Forbes definitely does not. On the other hand if Forbes can cut some kind of a deal with the Greens then she can head off some of the mafia on her own side. Nevertheless, the legacy of Murell and Sturgeon is so toxic, and the financial position so dire, it will take more than papering over the cracks to avoid the coming rout at the GE.
I rate Forbes, but even she will toil to avoid the consequences to the SNP of the last few years of increasingly authoritarian incompetence and set a new course that would bring any kind of recovery to the SNP. I am also reminded of how Tim Farron was eviscerated because he hesitated on a few questions concerning his own, very strong, religious faith, and Tim is a far less austere person than Kate Forbes. She will be under pressure from the start, and is clearly a big risk. So I'd say her chances are not that great. It voukd be worth her fitting it out this time and letting the Glasgow machine pols get hammered before she comes back as some kind of new broom. Problem with that is that the SNP could get such a skelping that any prospect of independence is done for any foreseeable future. So no easy path to get out of this mess for any concerned.
Comments
Who comes up with this bilge?
Tune in for some hot municipal action.
But as there's a lot of the West of England not included (the rest of Somerset for a start), it's both generic and non-descriptive at the same time.
I'm hugely interested in the subject of what the 'right' units of sub-national geography should be - what geography should they be based on, what should be their powers, etc. I wrote a far-too-long dissertation on it. I drank in the detail of the Redcliffe-Maud report. And at the end of that all I could really conclude is: it doesn't matter enough to be too dogmatic about it.
There are good reasons to make local authorities at least a certain size - economies of scale, and so on. But there are also good reasons not to make them too big - lack of responsiveness to local issues.
There are good reasons to make them electorally responsive. But there are also good reasons not to make everything too political.
Good politicians can make a difference, largely by working quietly and consistently in the right direction over a number of years in a not desperately glamorous way. But that can happen almost whatever the setup.
Instinctively, it appears to be logical to base authorities on cities. But that appears to be no guarantee of sensible government or success, and any correlation would appear to be weak.
You'd have thought naming the things was the least controversial aspect - but people care about names, particularly where it is the name of a city/town not their own; and a unit doesn't work without the support of its population. So 'Greater x' only really works where a majority to genuinely have some affinity for x.
Ultimately it's possible to govern/administer well or badly whatever unit you're doing it in.
So despite my furious interest in the subject, I can see both the modernist and the traditionalist argument, and I'm a little suspicious of any argument which says one approach or the other is unequivocally 'right' rather than 'on balance probably best'.
Probably the most practical name but utterly taboo.
(Ducks, runs and hides.)
Why not just call it Greater Bristol?
The TTT is hyposensitive to anything that has the faintest whiff of a dividing line, so if Rwanda shows any signs of working he'll slap a new label on it, copy it and adopt it.
I must say, I am looking forward to the logical contortions the fan-club then go through to defend it, and explain why it's totally different to the Tory version.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.201750386
But I do think you can have that whilst also setting a basic default setting which is more appropriate and effective than what we presently have. I do think district and county set ups have had their day for example.
But to go one step further, just look at the continued existence not only of parish councils, but parish meetings where there is no council. People have been arguing about what such bodies should be for, and whether there should be a minimum or maximum size to them, since their creation in 1896.
Certainly whoever did the wikipedia page for Avon (Anabobazina?) would agree
Some of my favourite constituency names have included:
Great Grimsby (why Great? It's not 'Greater Grimsby' as that would include Cleethorpes')
Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Westmorland and Lonsdale
The Hartlepools
Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (curious indecision by the commision there)
Penrith and the Border
Batley and Spen
Sheffield Brightside
Glasgow Garscadden
Liverpool West Derby
Down South (amusingly vague if you don't realise it's in NI)
Liverpool Scotland Exchange (suggestive of all sorts of mysteries)
Liverpool Everton (possibly the only constituency ever to name in full two professional football teams?)
Glasgow St. Rollox
The other thing that doesn't help is underbounding to the East and North, which then leads to conflict with the other councils e.g. with S Gloucs over the failed supertram.
Squirm.
I hadn’t heard of Liverpool Everton.
Tyne Bridge was a good one. Think it’s been abolished.
So long as its been properly thought through once you do it people will quickly get used to it, if they even notice - I saw an example once where there was a big stink about a local change stirred up by local politicians, then the change went ahead, and even some of the local politicians somehow failed to notice when it came into effect as they asked when it would happen after it already had!
Street names on the other hand do matter, if you've ever missed a parcel or takeout delivery because you live in an area with InsertName Road/Close/Street in close proximity and things constantly go astray.
#Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2M3E53upFI
https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview
https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-biden-polls
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Leeds is really Leeds-Bradford, and the West Yorks metro is really “Leeds-Bradford, with Wakefield and Huddersfield”. Planners may wish it were one agglomeration, but travel-to-work analysis shows it is functions as four or five separate economic geographies today.
Same is true with South Yorkshire.
West Midlands is really Birmingham, Wolves and Dudley - and Coventry, although at least the first three centres overlap.
Greater Newcastle is really Newcastle-Sunderland.
Nottingham and Derby don’t really have anything to do with one another at all.
I think some of these Frankensteins will go the way of “Avon”.
It’s also a single economic geography, per “travel to work area” analysis, ie, people in Eccles primarily commute into Manchester.
Whereas West Midlands metro is really four separate hubs: Birmigham, Wolverhampton and Dudley, which admittedly blend into one another; and Coventry, which is quite separate. West Midlands is also four different economic geographies, ie people who live in Wolverhampton don’t typically commute into Birmigham.
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be run as a single metro with a metro mayor, but it seems to be it’s a different kind of “thing” to Manchester.
The West Yorkshire settlements have even less to do with one another than the West Midlands ones do, and as I said Nottingham and Derby basically nothing save they are neighbours.
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1785453363452092896
This video is the most terrifying drone video I've ever seen. The absolute terror of this. Look closely at what is happening. Drones are dive bombing foxholes and trenches one at a time systematically destroying them across the line in quick succession with pinpoint accuracy...
...These are not fpv drones. these are dive bombers operating at full speed. they are diving in probably at like 80-100kph and dropping the bomb and pulling up to keep flying away at the same speed. Look closely, you see the drones approach and fly away
Ukraine plans to build a million drones this year; Russia likely something similar.
It's perhaps analogous to the mass production of the Kalashnikov early in the Cold War. That step change in cheaply available powerful weaponry for anyone who wanted it had global consequences. This likely more so.
F1: Ferrari/Aston Martin fans must b crossing their fingers. Adrian Newey is negotiating for early release from his Red Bull contract:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c84z8qklqvzo
In different F1 news, today is the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayrton Senna, something that affected me profoundly at the time as a teenager. One of the all-time great drivers.
Though I'd laugh my head off if Leclerc beats Hamilton to the title.
Surely, we've all learnt this by now?
But then, much of Trump is extraordinary and not in a good way.
I think schools that discriminate against children on the basis of faith is bad for society.
Can anyone explain to me, preferably sensibly and with reasoned explanation, why polls seem to converge in the immediate days prior to an election? Is it because Don’t Knows drop away? Or … what?
This may not be the best example because they’re local elections but it so often seems to happen just before the vote itself.
Ta muchly.
xx
“…had argument with Mr Jopling [my old history teacher] re. whether to use pre-1974 county boundaries on PPT illustrating school assembly talk on Pilgrimage of Grace. Took taxi to go round and round block emailing…”
I put this down to not getting out much and SSRI discontinuation.
Your point about the boundaries being odd is right. South Gloucestershire is a particularly odd council area - a clutch of small towns and rural areas plus, for no apparent reason, some suburbs of Bristol. I guess that's the point of the West of England Combined Authority, but indeed it was also the point of Avon which it essentially recreates. The metro mayors for that region haven't been deeply exciting - Tim Bowles was a bit of a nonentity and Dan Norris is an ex-MP hankering for a rematch against Jacob Rees-Mogg, who unseated him.
Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.
It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.
But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.
In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.
The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.
Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.
Thanks for listening.
xx
https://x.com/DalgetySusan/status/1785422055560675661
NEW THREAD
This country has a welfare state of which I’m proud. It’s one of the few remaining things I am proud about in Britain and I’m buggered if that little shit is going to further unravel it with his ruthless Singaporean goal.
* They deal with swing back differently prior to the election campaign, but when the election is announced they change their methodology
* Dan Hodges insists that herding is a conscious conspiracy (it isn't). But I think it's simply a function of all trying to get it right and cross-pollinating techniques
* possibly the fact that they have to specially treat those who have already voted by post?
Iirc they don't herd as much these days.
For whatever noble, high falutin', dare I say uber woke reason your comment yesterday was vile. And unambiguously racist.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is British but from immigrant stock. Recent immigrant stock that is because few of us are not at some point in history.
You have just told them that they are not properly British, that they in your eyes can't escape a characteristic from their "own" culture and moreover that there is a defining characteristic of "their", and of British culture.
It is exactly the same language as the most virulent racists use to other such people.
To borrow from the PO Inquiry vernacular, you are either a racist or a moron and I don't care which it is.
So you can take your Archbishop John Sentamu told mes and your don't you realises and you can fuck right off.
x
So, no, I'm not listening.
And, yes, he is evil. What he has said about those with disabilities, including mental illness, is pure unadulterated evil
There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of Sunak but anti-Hindu stereotyping should not be part of it.
The problem is that independence is no immediate prospect, so as with Useless, any new SNP government will need to choose how to run Scotland as it is, rather, than how they dream it should be. Thus, even if some kind of agreement of hypocrisy can be made, it will soon be torpedoed by reality. To govern is to choose.
At least Swinney has the blessing of the Glasgow mafia at the heart of the SNP, which Forbes definitely does not. On the other hand if Forbes can cut some kind of a deal with the Greens then she can head off some of the mafia on her own side. Nevertheless, the legacy of Murell and Sturgeon is so toxic, and the financial position so dire, it will take more than papering over the cracks to avoid the coming rout at the GE.
I rate Forbes, but even she will toil to avoid the consequences to the SNP of the last few years of increasingly authoritarian incompetence and set a new course that would bring any kind of recovery to the SNP. I am also reminded of how Tim Farron was eviscerated because he hesitated on a few questions concerning his own, very strong, religious faith, and Tim is a far less austere person than Kate Forbes. She will be under pressure from the start, and is clearly a big risk. So I'd say her chances are not that great. It voukd be worth her fitting it out this time and letting the Glasgow machine pols get hammered before she comes back as some kind of new broom. Problem with that is that the SNP could get such a skelping that any prospect of independence is done for any foreseeable future. So no easy path to get out of this mess for any concerned.