The name that surprised me for an exit was Eric Pickles who I always think is one of the Tories better performers. Unless he is going back to being party chairman again for the election which would make some sense.
How informed it is I wouldn't know, but as the story is appearing in the Telegraph I would guess not very (that paper seems to have sacked its good journalists). Whether such a reshuffle is a sensible idea is another matter, suddenly promoting a bunch of women to cabinet rank on the run up to the election will be open to charges of tokenism which might be even more damaging than there aren't enough women in senior positions.
I think Andrea Leadsom is unlikely as she has only been a minister for a short while. But haven't there been others like Esther McVey (?), Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan , Liz Truss, etc who have been ministers for a while? They may be a little light on experience to be at Cabinet rank, but you should have an idea of their executive capabilities already & they will be junior regardless of their official role.
Not surprised about Ken Clarke (past his sell by date), David Jones (who he?), Warsi (poor judgement). Pickles seems an odd choice - he was careless about the floods but surely that has receeded now (boom 'tish). Shapps seems to be doing ok as Chairman, so don't see why you'd replace him just before the election. Does Pickles have any London links (I think he was Bradford, right, but have a vague memory of an Essex connection?). Could they be positioning him to run for Mayor?
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
Out of curiosity I googled. Apparently after one of it's graduates created a couple of massively successful games the local university was one of the first to offer a video games specific software engineering course. Creating a cycle.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
The issue with Cambridge is that planning controls mean that it can't grow. I've seen suggestions that if It were allowed to, it would head towards the size of Manchester pretty smartly.
There are broader questions though on SE dominance. For example, British Airways could more accurately rename itself Home Counties Airlines given their network. That's not a central planning point but a abuse of bilaterals point.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
No I was at interesting lecture about that recently by the director of 4Js. His view was that Dundee has become a base for the games industry on the back of the creative industries in DC Thomson, the creative talents in Duncan & Jordanstone college of Art and of course the specialisation on computer gaming taken up by Abertay University which runs series of highly regarded courses specifically focussed on industry demand.
In short, it is a classic example of what I am talking about. Small businesses have been turned into larger ones by a focus through local education etc which has created a talent pool.
Mr Charles, Eric Pickles is MP for the Essex seat of Brentwood & Ongar. He took over from Bob McCrindle in 1992. Prior to the 2001 election there was a curious argument around an (alleged?) takeover of the Tory association by a born-again (or similar) Christian group, and so Martin Bell fought it "to keep religion out of politics".
I really don't see Eric Pickles as a particularly Christian evangelical figure!
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
Out of curiosity I googled. Apparently after one of it's graduates created a couple of massively successful games the local university was one of the first to offer a video games specific software engineering course. Creating a cycle.
Which is what I would call "natural" development: it wasn't some bloke in Whitehall saying "let's make Dundee a centre of X" but a result of a university offering a new course
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse: you have identified what a city needs to be successful but you haven't answered the fundamental question: why?
Liverpool and Bristol grew on the Atlantic shipping trade, Manchester (I believe) from weaving, Sheffield from steel and coal, Hartlepool and Newcastle from wool and coal, etc.
It's not enough to say "we need a northern city to balance London" - what we need is a reason why a city will grow naturally and be self-sustaining. Once we have that: absolutely, invest in the infrastructure and support systems needed to make it flourish. But to do the latter without the former will end up as a money sink and folie grandeur
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
I am with you on this one Mr. Charles (I am sure that will come as a great relief to you). If central planning of an economy worked the Soviet Union would have long ago have become the most prosperous place on Earth. Even in England surely we have tested the idea to death, regenerating the economics of the Northern cities by government direction has been going on for decades, since the end of WW2 in fact yet here we are still talking about how it could be made to work.
This latest idea of saying Lancashire will concentrate on industry x and then spending billions on infrastructure and government schemes to promote industry x in Lancashire is no more likely to work than any of the numerous predecessors (which included forced location of factories and direction of labour let us not forget).
That is why I mentioned "a degree of specialism to create that critical innovative mass, a coordination of colleges and other educational establishments to support the successes in the areas and a focus on international links, not just supplying the rest of the UK."
To take the example of IT, there is an increasing risk that this is going to be yet another London speciality. Surely a regional level authority based in Cambridge could try to do something about that?
A city or a region needs to focus on existing strengths and then focus policy at an appropriate level to build on those strengths. Most of England's current authorities are simply too small to achieve this.
But you are falling into the central planning trap. Effectively you are saying that a government can create the cluster effect that you are referring to. An IT firm will base itself where it can get the necessary staff - which, presumably, is more likely to be a metropolis rather than a market town (wild assumption that IT workers tend to be young and single). These things need to develop naturally - eg I believe @MaxPB once mentioned there were a lot of gaming jobs in Dundee, but I assume that developed for natural reasons?
Out of curiosity I googled. Apparently after one of it's graduates created a couple of massively successful games the local university was one of the first to offer a video games specific software engineering course. Creating a cycle.
Which is what I would call "natural" development: it wasn't some bloke in Whitehall saying "let's make Dundee a centre of X" but a result of a university offering a new course
The key Charles, where I think we are in agreement, is that public authorities whether Whitehall, local government or education should follow and support existing success removing barriers to further development and not delude themselves that they can create it from scratch. The question is what is the appropriate level and that may depend on the success that is being talked about.
No idea when the pre-race piece will be. Might watch the ladies' final after qualifying, so the pre-race piece might up in the evening rather than afternoon.
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
The favourite solution in gaming so far as I can see is to create subclasses like zombies which you can kill happily and without guilt because they are sub-human and bad. Tolkien did the same with Orcs of course.
Can't think of any Nazi connection to that line of thinking, can you?
GTA involves the killing of "real" people in "real" situations (ie not a war), hence it is more provocative.
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
The favourite solution in gaming so far as I can see is to create subclasses like zombies which you can kill happily and without guilt because they are sub-human and bad. Tolkien did the same with Orcs of course.
Can't think of any Nazi connection to that line of thinking, can you?
GTA involves the killing of "real" people in "real" situations (ie not a war), hence it is more provocative.
It's provocative, but still mostly harmless. People who become obsessed with one form of media and become violent would likely become obsessed with something else and become violent (the same argument as the 'people will kill with things other than guns if you take away the guns' now I think about it, though I suppose it's a matter of effectiveness). Also, from experience most people are not killed by guns in GTA and other sandbox games of that type; they're killed by reckless driving. It really messed up the immersion during my playthrough of Watchdogs, playing a hacker/fixer on a quest for truth and vengeance, when I kept carelessly ploughing through people at a bus stop by accident.
As for subclasses you can kill happily without guilt, for TV and Movies (videogames too a lot of the time) the solution is to put the bad guys in helmets that obscure their faces, and linking that tactic to Nazis, well, South Park: The Stick of Truth had Nazi Zombies. Perfect enemies.
On topic. The reason London has more new infrastructure spending on it is because it needs new infrastructure due to a booming population. The North of England has a falling population, so it does not need to expand capacity. It's not like London has sixteen times the infrastructure stock as elsewhere. And besides, why is Yorkshire more deserving than, say, Bedfordshire?
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
The favourite solution in gaming so far as I can see is to create subclasses like zombies which you can kill happily and without guilt because they are sub-human and bad. Tolkien did the same with Orcs of course.
Can't think of any Nazi connection to that line of thinking, can you?
GTA involves the killing of "real" people in "real" situations (ie not a war), hence it is more provocative.
It's provocative, but still mostly harmless. People who become obsessed with one form of media and become violent would likely become obsessed with something else and become violent (the same argument as the 'people will kill with things other than guns if you take away the guns' now I think about it, though I suppose it's a matter of effectiveness). Also, from experience most people are not killed by guns in GTA and other sandbox games of that type; they're killed by reckless driving. It really messed up the immersion during my playthrough of Watchdogs, playing a hacker/fixer on a quest for truth and vengeance, when I kept carelessly ploughing through people at a bus stop by accident.
As for subclasses you can kill happily without guilt, for TV and Movies (videogames too a lot of the time) the solution is to put the bad guys in helmets that obscure their faces, and linking that tactic to Nazis, well, South Park: The Stick of Truth had Nazi Zombies. Perfect enemies.
Charles Manson was inspired by a Beatles song, for God's sake. Video games don't make killers. Bad parenting does.
How the Establishment hid the monster in their midst: As MPs demand an inquiry into the covering-up of a VIP child abuse ring, chilling proof of how this depraved diplomat was protected by the good and the great
On topic. The reason London has more new infrastructure spending on it is because it needs new infrastructure due to a booming population. The North of England has a falling population, so it does not need to expand capacity. It's not like London has sixteen times the infrastructure stock as elsewhere. And besides, why is Yorkshire more deserving than, say, Bedfordshire?
Population could be the only reason it would be more deserving I guess, but it's pretty weak all around I think.
The key Charles, where I think we are in agreement, is that public authorities whether Whitehall, local government or education should follow and support existing success removing barriers to further development and not delude themselves that they can create it from scratch. The question is what is the appropriate level and that may depend on the success that is being talked about.
Mr. L.,
Isn't that just a variation on the "picking winners" strategy that was also done to do death here and abroad over the past half-century or so? Except of course you suggest that regional governments should be picking regional winners rather than doing it at the national level.
Rather than removing the barriers to the further development of one industry would it not be better to remove the barriers to all businesses and concentrate on providing the essential ingredient to all successful modern businesses - a workforce educated to a sufficient standard. Then get out of the way, the rest will happen in time naturally (if HMG don't stick their oar in).
Terrible idea. I don't want to see the ancient and historic country of England "regionalised" by carving it up into puny fiefdoms, which will be forever bickering with each other. It will further weaken and haemorrhage our mutual identity.
I can perhaps support localism - greater powers being devolved to historic English counties - but not this Balkanisation delivered through a plethora of contrived (and plenty will be contrived) regional parliaments.
I really don't understand this argument. I am complicated enough to hold many identities, I can manage with a regional identity as well as a national identity, as I have plenty of other identities already:
I am human, European, British, English - why not add Wessex? Further to that I am a father, a mathematician, a scientist, a knitter, a baker, etc.
The country of England can survive a sensible subdivision: Yorkshire, Thames, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia, East Anglia, Lancashire, Sussex and Northumbria. Yorkshire would be about average-szied, with Cornwall at the small extreme and Thames (incorporating London and the Thames and Medway rwatersheds) would be the largest.
Who the hell identifies with Mercia or the Thames? Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region. If you really had to break down the country, the broader South East would make sense: the current South East region plus Herts, Beds and Essex. Your breakdown excludes major areas. Where would Cheshire be put? Would you carve off half of Merseyside from historic Lancashire?
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
The favourite solution in gaming so far as I can see is to create subclasses like zombies which you can kill happily and without guilt because they are sub-human and bad. Tolkien did the same with Orcs of course.
Can't think of any Nazi connection to that line of thinking, can you?
GTA involves the killing of "real" people in "real" situations (ie not a war), hence it is more provocative.
It's provocative, but still mostly harmless. People who become obsessed with one form of media and become violent would likely become obsessed with something else and become violent (the same argument as the 'people will kill with things other than guns if you take away the guns' now I think about it, though I suppose it's a matter of effectiveness). Also, from experience most people are not killed by guns in GTA and other sandbox games of that type; they're killed by reckless driving. It really messed up the immersion during my playthrough of Watchdogs, playing a hacker/fixer on a quest for truth and vengeance, when I kept carelessly ploughing through people at a bus stop by accident.
As for subclasses you can kill happily without guilt, for TV and Movies (videogames too a lot of the time) the solution is to put the bad guys in helmets that obscure their faces, and linking that tactic to Nazis, well, South Park: The Stick of Truth had Nazi Zombies. Perfect enemies.
Charles Manson was inspired by a Beatles song, for God's sake. Video games don't make killers. Bad parenting does.
As for what makes such people, it is no doubt complicated, but you make the point succinctly. Such people will always find some kind of twisted inspiration. Specific form or even content of that 'inspiration' is pretty much irrelevant.
Lincolnshire must count as a country in one already. It has flat fens but unlike Norfolk, the denizens have five fingers on most hands. It has rolling hills but unlike Lancashire it is not lashed by monsoon drenchings. It has industry, even though that industry is agriculture (and we don't count rhubarb). It has mass immigration even though the country is still denuded of large cities like Yorkshire.
And finally, Isaac Newton, Lord Tennyson and Margaret Thatcher.
Err ... two out of three isn't bad.
Most of lowland Lincolnshire will be subsumed back into the Norfolk empire, aka Kingdom of East Anglia. As for Wessex. Pah. Wessex will get what has been coming to it since ca 600AD
You do realise that London was a midden when East Anglia ruled it, and it only began to flourish after Wessex stepped in to sort out the mess?
I'll see your London and raise you Raedwald, the greatest of the kings that has ever ruled in this land. Forth Wuffingas! And claim your birthright
Is that Raedwald the Great?
Oops, no, sorry. That's Alfred the Great, King of *Wessex*. It must be Raedwald the Forgotton.
Errrrr, Raedwald buried with the greatest treasure haul ever uncovered in the country and probably a better claim to be the rightful first over king of England. Alfred.... Scalded by a fishwife
In Welsh news, the people's republic is wailing today about English criticism of the NHS.
Cameron, apparently, called Offa's Dyke 'a line between life and death'
Strong stuff.
Even if the PM is wholly correct, he should think very carefully before opening his mouth, lest by appearing anti-Welsh, he does for Conservatives in Wales what Mrs Thatcher did for their Scots counterparts.
Terrible idea. I don't want to see the ancient and historic country of England "regionalised" by carving it up into puny fiefdoms, which will be forever bickering with each other. It will further weaken and haemorrhage our mutual identity.
I can perhaps support localism - greater powers being devolved to historic English counties - but not this Balkanisation delivered through a plethora of contrived (and plenty will be contrived) regional parliaments.
I really don't understand this argument. I am complicated enough to hold many identities, I can manage with a regional identity as well as a national identity, as I have plenty of other identities already:
I am human, European, British, English - why not add Wessex? Further to that I am a father, a mathematician, a scientist, a knitter, a baker, etc.
The country of England can survive a sensible subdivision: Yorkshire, Thames, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia, East Anglia, Lancashire, Sussex and Northumbria. Yorkshire would be about average-szied, with Cornwall at the small extreme and Thames (incorporating London and the Thames and Medway rwatersheds) would be the largest.
Who the hell identifies with Mercia or the Thames? Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region. If you really had to break down the country, the broader South East would make sense: the current South East region plus Herts, Beds and Essex. Your breakdown excludes major areas. Where would Cheshire be put? Would you carve off half of Merseyside from historic Lancashire?
"Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region"
Sussex makes perfect political and economic sense, thank you very much, and it has done so since before the Conquest.
What makes no sense at all is lumping the counties of Sussex, Surrey, Kent (*spits*) in with lands north of the Thames and calling it Sussex, or, indeed, South East Region.
Norfolk is, was, and ever more shall be the finest county. Unchanged, not needing to be split up into awkward lumps, beautiful beyond words. The home of Nelson, the home of heroes.
I'm still a bit miffed that King's Lynn council that it was a good idea for Admiral Vancouver's house to be demolished. Particularly now that about half the buildings in the town seem to be named after him...
Terrible idea. I don't want to see the ancient and historic country of England "regionalised" by carving it up into puny fiefdoms, which will be forever bickering with each other. It will further weaken and haemorrhage our mutual identity.
I can perhaps support localism - greater powers being devolved to historic English counties - but not this Balkanisation delivered through a plethora of contrived (and plenty will be contrived) regional parliaments.
I really don't understand this argument. I am complicated enough to hold many identities, I can manage with a regional identity as well as a national identity, as I have plenty of other identities already:
I am human, European, British, English - why not add Wessex? Further to that I am a father, a mathematician, a scientist, a knitter, a baker, etc.
The country of England can survive a sensible subdivision: Yorkshire, Thames, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia, East Anglia, Lancashire, Sussex and Northumbria. Yorkshire would be about average-szied, with Cornwall at the small extreme and Thames (incorporating London and the Thames and Medway rwatersheds) would be the largest.
Who the hell identifies with Mercia or the Thames? Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region. If you really had to break down the country, the broader South East would make sense: the current South East region plus Herts, Beds and Essex. Your breakdown excludes major areas. Where would Cheshire be put? Would you carve off half of Merseyside from historic Lancashire?
"Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region"
Sussex makes perfect political and economic sense, thank you very much, and it has done so since before the Conquest.
What makes no sense at all is lumping the counties of Sussex, Surrey, Kent (*spits*) in with lands north of the Thames and calling it Sussex, or, indeed, South East Region.
Your first sentence just restates your view without any argument whatsoever.
The home counties have frequently been grouped together. But anyway, this whole debate just shows how bloody pointless it is to try to do federalization in England. You can never do a system below the national level that doesn't come up with regions that people aren't happy with. We don't need to carve up England any more than the Americans carve up California. (A state which, at 30 million population, is much more successful than the Wyomings of this world.)
In Welsh news, the people's republic is wailing today about English criticism of the NHS.
Cameron, apparently, called Offa's Dyke 'a line between life and death'
Strong stuff.
Even if the PM is wholly correct, he should think very carefully before opening his mouth, lest by appearing anti-Welsh, he does for Conservatives in Wales what Mrs Thatcher did for their Scots counterparts.
If he is right, it is depressing that he should be prevented from saying something or doing something because of stupid political partisanship, but that's reality for you.
In Welsh news, the people's republic is wailing today about English criticism of the NHS.
Cameron, apparently, called Offa's Dyke 'a line between life and death'
Strong stuff.
Even if the PM is wholly correct, he should think very carefully before opening his mouth, lest by appearing anti-Welsh, he does for Conservatives in Wales what Mrs Thatcher did for their Scots counterparts.
What encouraging them to piss off and form their own country? Seems like a good idea to me.
I've got my Yorkshire Grand Depart cap, my t shirt, my coffee mug. The Tour will cycle past th front door of my boyhood home in about 30 minutes. My daughter used to work at Betty's in Harrogate.
Skipton, Kilnsey, Aysgarth, Middleham, Ripon, Harrogate - the entire route is full of places I know so well. Tomorrow too.
In Welsh news, the people's republic is wailing today about English criticism of the NHS.
Cameron, apparently, called Offa's Dyke 'a line between life and death'
Strong stuff.
Even if the PM is wholly correct, he should think very carefully before opening his mouth, lest by appearing anti-Welsh, he does for Conservatives in Wales what Mrs Thatcher did for their Scots counterparts.
What encouraging them to piss off and form their own country? Seems like a good idea to me.
Yes, I in Sheffield, take an interest in the West Riding.
That's mostly because, as a Sheffield lad, I spent six years working in Leeds (though I lived in North Yorkshire for most of those six years)
As an aside, up to 1974, Sheffield, was in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Call me a traditionalist, but isn't Sheffield still in the West Riding? I was a bit boggled by NP xMP's comment!
Of course Sheffield is not in the administrative region of West Yorkshire, since West Yorkshire is not the West Riding. But then, West Riding is basically just "made up". I don't know whether it is loathed as much as Humberside was, though I suspect not, and I don't know to what extent people now identify with the new boundaries rather than the old Ridings. People in the East Riding certainly still identify with their Riding but I think that is partly a reaction against the artificiality of Humberside being imposed upon them! I imagine that somewhere like Sheffield, in addition to its Yorkshireness, has a very strong local identity that might well surmount the intermediate-regional one. But it would need local knowledge to confirm.
Your first sentence just restates your view without any argument whatsoever.
The home counties have frequently been grouped together. But anyway, this whole debate just shows how bloody pointless it is to try to do federalization in England. You can never do a system below the national level that doesn't come up with regions that people aren't happy with. We don't need to carve up England any more than the Americans carve up California. (A state which, at 30 million population, is much more successful than the Wyomings of this world.)
"The home counties have frequently been grouped together"
Mostly in the Telegraph crossword where it is used as a clue for the letters "SE".
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
In my view you are correct that trying to carve up England into regions is a fools errand. That England would benefit from a return of powers (including revenue raising and deciding spending priorities) to local government is, I think, mainstream opinion outside Whitehall.
There's also the fact, which most of the old geezers in Westminster and the media don't seem to get, that these computer games are made for adults. They have age ratings in just the same way that movies and TV shows do. The government has no more entitlement to stop adults playing computer games about murder than it does to ban the publication of Silence of the Lambs or Dexter. If you want to keep them out the hands of kids, than educate crappy parents about what's in them. I've been amazed at the number of mums that buy GTA for their ten year olds without even realising the content of violence and prostitution in them.
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
It was a political entity before the Conquest, but was no longer so after 1974. As for "an economic entity" you just seem to be meaning it (incorrectly) as another phrase for "political entity", unless I'm missing something? Most of the transport links run north-south into Kent and Surrey than they do east-west within the historic county. A lot of the workers there commute to London.
There's also the fact, which most of the old geezers in Westminster and the media don't seem to get, that these computer games are made for adults. They have age ratings in just the same way that movies and TV shows do. The government has no more entitlement to stop adults playing computer games about murder than it does to ban the publication of Silence of the Lambs or Dexter. If you want to keep them out the hands of kids, than educate crappy parents about what's in them. I've been amazed at the number of mums that buy GTA for their ten year olds without even realising the content of violence and prostitution in them.
Back around the time of the original I might have been able to understand it, with the more primitive graphics and topdown view perhaps making unobservant parents not notice what the bloody thing was actually about, but with modern gaming as it is and as huge an industry as it is, it's absurd. The dominance of games geared to adults is for the very good reason that adults can buy their own games and have more money to spend on them, but there are plenty of family and kiddy games for parents to choose from for god's sake.
How the Establishment hid the monster in their midst: As MPs demand an inquiry into the covering-up of a VIP child abuse ring, chilling proof of how this depraved diplomat was protected by the good and the great
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
It was a political entity before the Conquest, but was no longer so after 1974. As for "an economic entity" you just seem to be meaning it (incorrectly) as another phrase for "political entity", unless I'm missing something? Most of the transport links run north-south into Kent and Surrey than they do east-west within the historic county. A lot of the workers there commute to London.
Bloody hell, Mr. Socrates, I am glad you told me all that otherwise I would never have realised. People from Sussex, commute into London? Well, damn, who knew?
On the basis that earning income outside a region, or state, prevents said region or state as being an economic entity, I guess the only actual economic entity on the planet is that of the Bushmen of the kalahari Desert.
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
It was a political entity before the Conquest, but was no longer so after 1974. As for "an economic entity" you just seem to be meaning it (incorrectly) as another phrase for "political entity", unless I'm missing something? Most of the transport links run north-south into Kent and Surrey than they do east-west within the historic county. A lot of the workers there commute to London.
Bloody hell, Mr. Socrates, I am glad you told me all that otherwise I would never have realised. People from Sussex, commute into London? Well, damn, who knew?
On the basis that earning income outside a region, or state, prevents said region or state as being an economic entity, I guess the only actual economic entity on the planet is that of the Bushmen of the kalahari Desert.
Take one line out of context from the broader argument, exaggerrate it hugely, and then say it doesn't work. Yeah, great comeback. Feel free to actually respond to the question in my post and I might bother to engage.
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
All the recent mass killings in the US have been perpetrated by individuals with very clear, very severe mental health issues that had been identified and acknowledged by the family as well as brought to the attention of the authorities, the California, Colorado and New England ones spring to mind. The issue isn't guns or video games, or whatever hobby horse one has, it is clear failure in the treatment of individuals who were clearly seriously mentally disturbed. These people should have been institutionalised and society protected from them but that would be judgemental wouldn't it.
Mr. L, not sure Yankee doodle lawmakers would agree with you.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
All the recent mass killings in the US have been perpetrated by individuals with very clear, very severe mental health issues that had been identified and acknowledged by the family as well as brought to the attention of the authorities, the California, Colorado and New England ones spring to mind. The issue isn't guns or video games, or whatever hobby horse one has, it is clear failure in the treatment of individuals who were clearly seriously mentally disturbed. These people should have been institutionalised and society protected from them but that would be judgemental wouldn't it.
Sure, but you could probably do more to stop mentally deranged people getting guns. If you buy a gun in a shop, you have to get a background check, but buy it at a gun show and its not needed. Its a loophole that needs to be closed.
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
It was a political entity before the Conquest, but was no longer so after 1974. As for "an economic entity" you just seem to be meaning it (incorrectly) as another phrase for "political entity", unless I'm missing something? Most of the transport links run north-south into Kent and Surrey than they do east-west within the historic county. A lot of the workers there commute to London.
Bloody hell, Mr. Socrates, I am glad you told me all that otherwise I would never have realised. People from Sussex, commute into London? Well, damn, who knew?
On the basis that earning income outside a region, or state, prevents said region or state as being an economic entity, I guess the only actual economic entity on the planet is that of the Bushmen of the kalahari Desert.
Take one line out of context from the broader argument, exaggerrate it hugely, and then say it doesn't work. Yeah, great comeback. Feel free to actually respond to the question in my post and I might bother to engage.
Given that this conversation started off with me agreeing with you, I think we might have done it to death, don't you?
Your first sentence just restates your view without any argument whatsoever.
The home counties have frequently been grouped together. But anyway, this whole debate just shows how bloody pointless it is to try to do federalization in England. You can never do a system below the national level that doesn't come up with regions that people aren't happy with. We don't need to carve up England any more than the Americans carve up California. (A state which, at 30 million population, is much more successful than the Wyomings of this world.)
"The home counties have frequently been grouped together"
Mostly in the Telegraph crossword where it is used as a clue for the letters "SE".
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
In my view you are correct that trying to carve up England into regions is a fools errand. That England would benefit from a return of powers (including revenue raising and deciding spending priorities) to local government is, I think, mainstream opinion outside Whitehall.
Weren't Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, Kent, Essex and Northumbria all kingdoms in their own right?
Are the Germans any less German despite the Bundesrepublik being a federal country?
Please excuse my ignorance as I've never been to a major cycling event like the TDF. How long does it take the field (excluding the stragglers) to pass one's line of vision .... 30 seconds, one minute, five minutes, more? And is that it?
Don't know about 'God's own County' but parts of N Yorkshire are certainly spectacularly wild and stunning. - Yorkshire and the Humber on the other hand - not so much.
Please excuse my ignorance as I've never been to a major cycling event like the TDF. How long does it take the field (excluding the stragglers) to pass one's line of vision .... 30 seconds, one minute, five minutes, more? And is that it?
It depends how tough and how far into the individual stage you are Can take a few minutes by the time the whole shebang, team buses etc rolls past. I will be at the roadside in Epping on Monday and will try and time it for you.
Proud of my Yorkshire ancestry. Wensleydale and later Ryedale/Hambleton. Took an Australian cousin over there last year to show her around, and we had a great time.
Stood in the church (dates back to A.D. 797) where our great, great grandparents had married in 1836. Time stood still...
Afternoon all and I hope the lycra clad fraternity are having a splendid day traversing the moors and dales of the White Rose county.
Not sure if the film down thread is the one I am thinking of. The very funny comedy sketch where the plane laden with Yorkshire loons takes of on a long flight, flies round Yorkshire and lands back in Yorkshire to make the point Yorkshire people don't consider anywhere else worth travelling to.
The sheer fact that a Yorkshire First party exists and got over 1% suggests they are more likely to think of themselves as unique than almost any other county
Dunno, I reckon you could probably get something similar with Essex First or whatever if you had a constituency corresponding to the regional brand. When it came to the actual voting the people of Yorkshire showed how open-minded and non-parochial they were by passing over Yorkshire First, the English Democrats and the British National Party and backing the positively cosmopolitan United Kingdom Independence Party.
The sheer fact that a Yorkshire First party exists and got over 1% suggests they are more likely to think of themselves as unique than almost any other county
Dunno, I reckon you could probably get something similar with Essex First or whatever if you had a constituency corresponding to the regional brand. When it came to the actual voting the people of Yorkshire showed how open-minded and non-parochial they were by passing over Yorkshire First, the English Democrats and the British National Party and backing the positively cosmopolitan United Kingdom Independence Party.
Canvey Island Town Council is controlled by the Canvey Island Independence Party.
The sheer fact that a Yorkshire First party exists and got over 1% suggests they are more likely to think of themselves as unique than almost any other county
Dunno, I reckon you could probably get something similar with Essex First or whatever if you had a constituency corresponding to the regional brand. When it came to the actual voting the people of Yorkshire showed how open-minded and non-parochial they were by passing over Yorkshire First, the English Democrats and the British National Party and backing the positively cosmopolitan United Kingdom Independence Party.
Canvey Island Town Council is controlled by the Canvey Island Independence Party.
An independent Canvey Island would be another potential non-EU tax haven and deregulated finance hub should the City of London fail to heed my wise advice to secede from the UK.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
A Merseyside First Independence Party would do well in the NW. Most of Lancashire would vote for it.
" Most of Lancashire would vote for it." You mean presumably those parts of Lancashire which were fortunate enough not to be included in the designated Merseyside area.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
That's how I'd do it. South Essex and Northern Kent join together, Norfolk and Suffolk merge to make the county of Folk (no new letterheads, just Tippex) and the anything north of Braintree picks one or the other in a little referendum.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
The Kingdom of Chavia. Its capital city could be the new Ebbsfleet Garden City and its National Park, Boris Island Airport.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
That's how I'd do it. South Essex and Northern Kent join together, Norfolk and Suffolk merge to make the county of Folk (no new letterheads, just Tippex) and the anything north of Braintree picks one or the other in a little referendum.
I agree, but I’d put the dividing a bit further S. Maldon to Bishops Stortford or something like that.
On a different topic, the Mirror has a list of the websites found on Rolf Harris' computer. Does anyone else wonder how much the traffic to these has increased since this morning?
Probably the most surprising qualifying session of the year, from start to finish. Bit tired (just been exercising) but I'll write up how things went then see how the markets look. As expertly (if vaguely) predicted by me: "... perhaps we'll end up with an unexpected grid."
This is all a bit fatuous Mr Herdson and I'm sure it will just stir up the usual catawauling of complaints about the great satan of London. Is it really sensible to compare costs of infrastructure between London and elsewhere when the biggest engineering project in Europe is taking place under London - £15 billion of crossrail. All major cities like London have mass transit systems. Paris plans to invest €20.5 billion on125 miles of rapid transit lines, most of which will be completed by 2025.
Assuming selfish protests are ignored then Leeds will become a terminus for HS2. The North (from which I come) can hardly claim to be distant and forgotten then can it? North Yorkshire is very beautiful - arguably the last thing it needs is more 'investment' and intrusion from the modern world.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
That's how I'd do it. South Essex and Northern Kent join together, Norfolk and Suffolk merge to make the county of Folk (no new letterheads, just Tippex) and the anything north of Braintree picks one or the other in a little referendum.
Ah, I presume you're going for the Schleisweg-Hollstein system.
To my mind, the number one priority is independence for London. And after that the rest of the country can fend for themselves.
Terrible idea. I don't want to see the ancient and historic country of England "regionalised" by carving it up into puny fiefdoms, which will be forever bickering with each other. It will further weaken and haemorrhage our mutual identity.
I can perhaps support localism - greater powers being devolved to historic English counties - but not this Balkanisation delivered through a plethora of contrived (and plenty will be contrived) regional parliaments.
I really don't understand this argument. I am complicated enough to hold many identities, I can manage with a regional identity as well as a national identity, as I have plenty of other identities already:
I am human, European, British, English - why not add Wessex? Further to that I am a father, a mathematician, a scientist, a knitter, a baker, etc.
The country of England can survive a sensible subdivision: Yorkshire, Thames, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia, East Anglia, Lancashire, Sussex and Northumbria. Yorkshire would be about average-szied, with Cornwall at the small extreme and Thames (incorporating London and the Thames and Medway rwatersheds) would be the largest.
Who the hell identifies with Mercia or the Thames? Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region. If you really had to break down the country, the broader South East would make sense: the current South East region plus Herts, Beds and Essex. Your breakdown excludes major areas. Where would Cheshire be put? Would you carve off half of Merseyside from historic Lancashire?
"Sussex would make no political or economic sense as a region"
Sussex makes perfect political and economic sense, thank you very much, and it has done so since before the Conquest.
What makes no sense at all is lumping the counties of Sussex, Surrey, Kent (*spits*) in with lands north of the Thames and calling it Sussex, or, indeed, South East Region.
Your first sentence just restates your view without any argument whatsoever.
The home counties have frequently been grouped together. But anyway, this whole debate just shows how bloody pointless it is to try to do federalization in England. You can never do a system below the national level that doesn't come up with regions that people aren't happy with. We don't need to carve up England any more than the Americans carve up California. (A state which, at 30 million population, is much more successful than the Wyomings of this world.)
Yes I would agree with you. We do not need 'regional govt' - we have local govt, where most people do not bother to vote.
The greatest King of Essex was Sexred. He had a short joint reign with Saeward, which began and ended within the single year of 617, but during his few months on the throne he founded ESIP, the East Saxon Independence Party, and invented both the shell suit and white shoes. Sadly the two young Kings picked a fight with the West Saxons and their days of living off Witenagemot allowances were over.
There’s always been a case for a Thamesbank Administrative Area which would include the southern part of Essex and the northern coast of Kent, at least as far east as the Medway. Much more commonality with each other than S Essex has with the middle and north of the county.
That's how I'd do it. South Essex and Northern Kent join together, Norfolk and Suffolk merge to make the county of Folk (no new letterheads, just Tippex) and the anything north of Braintree picks one or the other in a little referendum.
Ah, I presume you're going for the Schleisweg-Hollstein system.
To my mind, the number one priority is independence for London. And after that the rest of the country can fend for themselves.
Do you understand the Schleswig-Holstein Question, then?
I'd better add that I like Scousers, but they do tend to elect some right knobheads
F.E. Smith, George Canning, Edward Marshall Hall, David Maxwell-Fyffe, William Roscoe, William Rathbone, T.P. O'Connor and George Nathaniel Curzon are among an impressive panoply of non-knobheads they elected...
I'd better add that I like Scousers, but they do tend to elect some right knobheads
F.E. Smith, George Canning, Edward Marshall Hall, David Maxwell-Fyffe, William Roscoe, William Rathbone, T.P. O'Connor and George Nathaniel Curzon are among an impressive panoply of non-knobheads they elected...
My name is George Nathaniel Curzon I am a most superior person My cheeks are pink My hair is sleek I dine at Blenheim once a week
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
Was there an independent Cornish kingdom?
Dumnovia (Devon and Cornwall roughly) was a kingdom after the Roman evacuation, it held out longer than most of the British kingdoms and was eventually pushed back to the kingdom of Kernow (Cornwall) which was the last bastion of Celtic British rule in England, being overrun by the United English Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons at some time in the 10th century. Cornwall remained an anomaly throughout into the Middle Ages with many documents referring to the kingdom of England, Wales and Cornwall, which is the basis for Mebyon Kernows claims for a Scots or Welsh style devolution settlement. Cornish was spoken widely as the only language of its people until the 17th century and is now making a comeback. So, yes
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
Was there an independent Cornish kingdom?
Dumnovia (Devon and Cornwall roughly) was a kingdom after the Roman evacuation, it held out longer than most of the British kingdoms and was eventually pushed back to the kingdom of Kernow (Cornwall) which was the last bastion of Celtic British rule in England, being overrun by the United English Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons at some time in the 10th century. Cornwall remained an anomaly throughout into the Middle Ages with many documents referring to the kingdom of England, Wales and Cornwall, which is the basis for Mebyon Kernows claims for a Scots or Welsh style devolution settlement. Cornish was spoken widely until the 17th century and is now making a comeback. So, yes
Ah, thanks for that. So what was West Wales? Seen it on my Times Atlas of World History.
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
Was there an independent Cornish kingdom?
Dumnovia (Devon and Cornwall roughly) was a kingdom after the Roman evacuation, it held out longer than most of the British kingdoms and was eventually pushed back to the kingdom of Kernow (Cornwall) which was the last bastion of Celtic British rule in England, being overrun by the United English Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons at some time in the 10th century. Cornwall remained an anomaly throughout into the Middle Ages with many documents referring to the kingdom of England, Wales and Cornwall, which is the basis for Mebyon Kernows claims for a Scots or Welsh style devolution settlement. Cornish was spoken widely until the 17th century and is now making a comeback. So, yes
Ah, thanks for that. So what was West Wales? Seen it on my Times Atlas of World History.
West Wealas, the western foreigners in Anglo Saxon, their name for the Briton Kingdom of Cornwall before it's conquering and the derivation of the name Wales also. Foreigners.
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
Was there an independent Cornish kingdom?
Dumnovia (Devon and Cornwall roughly) was a kingdom after the Roman evacuation, it held out longer than most of the British kingdoms and was eventually pushed back to the kingdom of Kernow (Cornwall) which was the last bastion of Celtic British rule in England, being overrun by the United English Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons at some time in the 10th century. Cornwall remained an anomaly throughout into the Middle Ages with many documents referring to the kingdom of England, Wales and Cornwall, which is the basis for Mebyon Kernows claims for a Scots or Welsh style devolution settlement. Cornish was spoken widely until the 17th century and is now making a comeback. So, yes
Ah, thanks for that. So what was West Wales? Seen it on my Times Atlas of World History.
Sometimes used by the English as a description of Cornwall.
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
Was there an independent Cornish kingdom?
According to Wikipedia, yes. Appears to have become subsumed into England by the time of the Conquest.
There's some evidence it may have held on until around the time of Harthacanute in the early 11th century, and Cornish Britons were selected as Ealdormen after the conquest to try and appease the local populace. Most likely from my memory it fell as a kingdom effectively in about 950ad, there are a couple of tombstones of 'kings' dating to that time with contemporary tales of battles versus the English Although it was never formally subsumed into England until much later, it remained a conquered territory, referred to separately from England in many official documents and statutes. That all got mingled in as one by the 16th century.
Just back from watching Le Tour in Skipton... Fantastic atmosphere and very proud of God's own today... To reply to a few points down thread:
- Yorkshire has premiership football without needing to merge with Lancashire, the mighty Tigers - Humberside was abolished long ago and replaced by the historic East Riding of Yorkshire - the race took three minutes to pass...
Comments
Not surprised about Ken Clarke (past his sell by date), David Jones (who he?), Warsi (poor judgement). Pickles seems an odd choice - he was careless about the floods but surely that has receeded now (boom 'tish). Shapps seems to be doing ok as Chairman, so don't see why you'd replace him just before the election. Does Pickles have any London links (I think he was Bradford, right, but have a vague memory of an Essex connection?). Could they be positioning him to run for Mayor?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8399935.stm
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/uk-pre-qualifying.html
No tip, but a look at how things might go and an explanation of why the FIA's idea for standing re-starts is cretinous.
There are broader questions though on SE dominance. For example, British Airways could more accurately rename itself Home Counties Airlines given their network. That's not a central planning point but a abuse of bilaterals point.
In short, it is a classic example of what I am talking about. Small businesses have been turned into larger ones by a focus through local education etc which has created a talent pool.
Coming up with GTA didn't do any harm either.
Prior to the 2001 election there was a curious argument around an (alleged?) takeover of the Tory association by a born-again (or similar) Christian group, and so Martin Bell fought it "to keep religion out of politics".
I really don't see Eric Pickles as a particularly Christian evangelical figure!
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
It's beyond satire that some American politicians are happy for citizens to wander about with assault rifles but want to severely limit guns in videogames because of the risk they pose.
Well of course. Pretend violence makes countless individuals want to commit real violence, these are literal murder simulators after all, but no need to blame the best means to achieve that violence. Assuming everyone is at risk from an entire medium of entertainment because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ok, but assuming everyone is at risk from firearms because of a few violent nutcases and needing to restrict that is ridiculous.
The solution to make everyone happy is just to make all violent games about killing Nazis, no-one will mind if some idiot becomes obsessed with killing Hitler.
P.S Not all opinions expressed herein may be genuine.
This latest idea of saying Lancashire will concentrate on industry x and then spending billions on infrastructure and government schemes to promote industry x in Lancashire is no more likely to work than any of the numerous predecessors (which included forced location of factories and direction of labour let us not forget).
Can't think of any Nazi connection to that line of thinking, can you?
GTA involves the killing of "real" people in "real" situations (ie not a war), hence it is more provocative.
As for subclasses you can kill happily without guilt, for TV and Movies (videogames too a lot of the time) the solution is to put the bad guys in helmets that obscure their faces, and linking that tactic to Nazis, well, South Park: The Stick of Truth had Nazi Zombies. Perfect enemies.
There's a chance here to nail a few power abusers and stop them hurting other children.MPs need to ask themselves whose side are they on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10947561/More-than-10-politicians-on-list-held-by-police-investigating-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681318/How-Establishment-hid-monster-midst-As-MPs-demand-inquiry-covering-VIP-child-abuse-ring-chilling-proof-depraved-diplomat-protected-good-great.html
Isn't that just a variation on the "picking winners" strategy that was also done to do death here and abroad over the past half-century or so? Except of course you suggest that regional governments should be picking regional winners rather than doing it at the national level.
Rather than removing the barriers to the further development of one industry would it not be better to remove the barriers to all businesses and concentrate on providing the essential ingredient to all successful modern businesses - a workforce educated to a sufficient standard. Then get out of the way, the rest will happen in time naturally (if HMG don't stick their oar in).
Alfred.... Scalded by a fishwife
Sussex makes perfect political and economic sense, thank you very much, and it has done so since before the Conquest.
What makes no sense at all is lumping the counties of Sussex, Surrey, Kent (*spits*) in with lands north of the Thames and calling it Sussex, or, indeed, South East Region.
The home counties have frequently been grouped together. But anyway, this whole debate just shows how bloody pointless it is to try to do federalization in England. You can never do a system below the national level that doesn't come up with regions that people aren't happy with. We don't need to carve up England any more than the Americans carve up California. (A state which, at 30 million population, is much more successful than the Wyomings of this world.)
Skipton, Kilnsey, Aysgarth, Middleham, Ripon, Harrogate - the entire route is full of places I know so well. Tomorrow too.
Yorkshire looks absolutely fantastic!
It's a difficult balancing act, but you can see why Dave doesn;t want to take lectures on the NHS and education from Labour.
Wales couldn't afford to p8ss off. It is a vassal state with a puny private sector completely dependent on English money.
Of course Sheffield is not in the administrative region of West Yorkshire, since West Yorkshire is not the West Riding. But then, West Riding is basically just "made up". I don't know whether it is loathed as much as Humberside was, though I suspect not, and I don't know to what extent people now identify with the new boundaries rather than the old Ridings. People in the East Riding certainly still identify with their Riding but I think that is partly a reaction against the artificiality of Humberside being imposed upon them! I imagine that somewhere like Sheffield, in addition to its Yorkshireness, has a very strong local identity that might well surmount the intermediate-regional one. But it would need local knowledge to confirm.
Mostly in the Telegraph crossword where it is used as a clue for the letters "SE".
That Sussex has been a political and economic entity since before the Conquest doesn't need an argument. It is a statement of fact.
In my view you are correct that trying to carve up England into regions is a fools errand. That England would benefit from a return of powers (including revenue raising and deciding spending priorities) to local government is, I think, mainstream opinion outside Whitehall.
There's also the fact, which most of the old geezers in Westminster and the media don't seem to get, that these computer games are made for adults. They have age ratings in just the same way that movies and TV shows do. The government has no more entitlement to stop adults playing computer games about murder than it does to ban the publication of Silence of the Lambs or Dexter. If you want to keep them out the hands of kids, than educate crappy parents about what's in them. I've been amazed at the number of mums that buy GTA for their ten year olds without even realising the content of violence and prostitution in them.
On the basis that earning income outside a region, or state, prevents said region or state as being an economic entity, I guess the only actual economic entity on the planet is that of the Bushmen of the kalahari Desert.
Luxury... etc etc.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Kerala_God's_Own_Country_Logo.svg
Are the Germans any less German despite the Bundesrepublik being a federal country?
How long does it take the field (excluding the stragglers) to pass one's line of vision .... 30 seconds, one minute, five minutes, more? And is that it?
Can take a few minutes by the time the whole shebang, team buses etc rolls past.
I will be at the roadside in Epping on Monday and will try and time it for you.
Took an Australian cousin over there last year to show her around, and we had a great time.
Stood in the church (dates back to A.D. 797) where our great, great grandparents had married in 1836. Time stood still...
Not sure if the film down thread is the one I am thinking of. The very funny comedy sketch where the plane laden with Yorkshire loons takes of on a long flight, flies round Yorkshire and lands back in Yorkshire to make the point Yorkshire people don't consider anywhere else worth travelling to.
A Merseyside First Independence Party would do well in the NW. Most of Lancashire would vote for it.
On a different topic, the Mirror has a list of the websites found on Rolf Harris' computer. Does anyone else wonder how much the traffic to these has increased since this morning?
Something about Australians .......
Probably the most surprising qualifying session of the year, from start to finish. Bit tired (just been exercising) but I'll write up how things went then see how the markets look. As expertly (if vaguely) predicted by me: "... perhaps we'll end up with an unexpected grid."
"You mean presumably those parts of Lancashire which were fortunate enough not to be included in the designated Merseyside area."
Indeed. I'd vote for it too, but I might then have to leave my Liverpool postcode.
Is it really sensible to compare costs of infrastructure between London and elsewhere when the biggest engineering project in Europe is taking place under London - £15 billion of crossrail. All major cities like London have mass transit systems. Paris plans to invest €20.5 billion on125 miles of rapid transit lines, most of which will be completed by 2025.
Assuming selfish protests are ignored then Leeds will become a terminus for HS2. The North (from which I come) can hardly claim to be distant and forgotten then can it? North Yorkshire is very beautiful - arguably the last thing it needs is more 'investment' and intrusion from the modern world.
To my mind, the number one priority is independence for London. And after that the rest of the country can fend for themselves.
I think Cornwall could make stronger claims of self-identity than Yorkshire.
I did once, but I've forgotten...
I am a most superior person
My cheeks are pink
My hair is sleek
I dine at Blenheim once a week
Cornwall remained an anomaly throughout into the Middle Ages with many documents referring to the kingdom of England, Wales and Cornwall, which is the basis for Mebyon Kernows claims for a Scots or Welsh style devolution settlement. Cornish was spoken widely as the only language of its people until the 17th century and is now making a comeback.
So, yes
So what was West Wales? Seen it on my Times Atlas of World History.
Most likely from my memory it fell as a kingdom effectively in about 950ad, there are a couple of tombstones of 'kings' dating to that time with contemporary tales of battles versus the English
Although it was never formally subsumed into England until much later, it remained a conquered territory, referred to separately from England in many official documents and statutes.
That all got mingled in as one by the 16th century.
If that was football basically he did a challenge worthy of a red on Simon Gerrans and broke his own leg (collarbone) in the process.
- Yorkshire has premiership football without needing to merge with Lancashire, the mighty Tigers
- Humberside was abolished long ago and replaced by the historic East Riding of Yorkshire
- the race took three minutes to pass...