I'm not sure what the definition is, or if it matters...
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.
Well none of it matters that much, but it's interesting maybe? (Fretting about how many nobels yr country has seems a bit pointless - but Japan likes to fret about it from time to time. The Faroe Islands has avery good per capita records according to wikipedia!)
I'm not sure what the definition is, or if it matters...
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.
Well none of it matters that much, but it's interesting maybe? (Fretting about how many nobels yr country has seems a bit pointless - but Japan likes to fret about it from time to time. The Faroe Islands has avery good per capita records according to wikipedia!)
Surely it answers the question of not only how many smart people come from Liverpool - but also whether they stay there - Barkla (Widnes) did his X-ray work at the Cavendish in Cambridge, for example. Sherrington (Islington born) studied at London and Oxford as well as Liverpool.
I'm not sure what the definition is, or if it matters...
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.
Well none of it matters that much, but it's interesting maybe? (Fretting about how many nobels yr country has seems a bit pointless - but Japan likes to fret about it from time to time. The Faroe Islands has avery good per capita records according to wikipedia!)
Surely it answers the question of not only how many smart people come from Liverpool - but also whether they stay there - Barkla (Widnes) did his X-ray work at the Cavendish in Cambridge, for example. Sherrington (Islington born) studied at London and Oxford as well as Liverpool.
Ha ha, do you apply those standards to everywhere else, or just to those people associated with Liverpool? Sherrington ended up in Ipswich, Barkla in Edinburgh.
Besides, I never claimed any of these people were from Liverpool. As an international metropolis in its heyday, the city attracted people from all over the country, indeed the world, who made their mark. Some stayed, some left. So what?
If you're looking for a born-and-bred Liverpudlian, there are plenty who made an impact, outside comedy or music (while not diminishing their peerless contributions).
Just a handful, from the top of my head.
Edward Rushton, blind anti-slavery campaigner who also established the world's oldest continuous school for the blind - in Liverpool. 14th Earl of Derby, political titan Peter Ellis, architect of the "skyscraper" William Ewart Gladstone, political titan. John Hulley, Olympic pioneer, his games were held in Liverpool 30 years before "the Modern Oympiad" Frank Hornby - how many million kids were educated and entertained by Meccano, Hornby Trains and Dinky Toys? Billy Hitler, the Fuhrer's ne'er-do-well nephew...
I'm not sure what the definition is, or if it matters...
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.
Well none of it matters that much, but it's interesting maybe? (Fretting about how many nobels yr country has seems a bit pointless - but Japan likes to fret about it from time to time. The Faroe Islands has avery good per capita records according to wikipedia!)
Surely it answers the question of not only how many smart people come from Liverpool - but also whether they stay there - Barkla (Widnes) did his X-ray work at the Cavendish in Cambridge, for example. Sherrington (Islington born) studied at London and Oxford as well as Liverpool.
As an international metropolis in its heyday
That's not in dispute - but has any great British city fallen so far? (Bristol?).
Other great cities appear to have been better at re-inventing themselves, a never-ending process.
I'm not sure what the definition is, or if it matters...
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.
Well none of it matters that much, but it's interesting maybe? (Fretting about how many nobels yr country has seems a bit pointless - but Japan likes to fret about it from time to time. The Faroe Islands has avery good per capita records according to wikipedia!)
Surely it answers the question of not only how many smart people come from Liverpool - but also whether they stay there - Barkla (Widnes) did his X-ray work at the Cavendish in Cambridge, for example. Sherrington (Islington born) studied at London and Oxford as well as Liverpool.
As an international metropolis in its heyday
That's not in dispute - but has any great British city fallen so far? (Bristol?).
Other great cities appear to have been better at re-inventing themselves, a never-ending process.
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Any voting system is capable of throwing up enough MPs to provide a majority in Parliament. Including STV and AV, if that is how the electorate as a whole feels.
On your last point, Mr Quid, how many Tory MPs are described as "good constituency MPs", according to your definition? I suspect the answer is relatvely small.
Why do you ask about just Tory MPs?
Because your definition equated being "good constituency MPs" to acting as social workers (taken from the Tory Party handbook on the subject). Lib Dem MPs are historically good at working with their communities, I suspect that many Labour MPs are too. The Tory Party handbook despises this sort of thing - so I was wondering just how many Tory MPs you thought went in for being "good constituency MPs".
Stepping back, this sort of split story is what has ruined political coverage and perhaps politics itself since at least the 1980s. Of course the shadow cabinet and indeed cabinet are split on any number of topics. That's why we have collective responsibility. The media's endless highlighting of split stories is what led to the stifling of debate as New Labour and then the Conservatives (and the SNP) required members to be relentlessly "on-message" all of the time. Implemented policies have not been noticeably improved through lack of debate and examination beforehand.
None of which takes away from Corbyn being a wuzzock for drifting into splits on an issue Labour will not have to decide.
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Thanks.So it looks like the Times front page lead is basically a reannouncement from last November, and possibly the previous parliament. So at least I've saved a few quid by not subscribing to the "newspaper of record" (and playback, it would appear).
Stepping back, this sort of split story is what has ruined political coverage and perhaps politics itself since at least the 1980s. Of course the shadow cabinet and indeed cabinet are split on any number of topics. That's why we have collective responsibility. The media's endless highlighting of split stories is what led to the stifling of debate as New Labour and then the Conservatives (and the SNP) required members to be relentlessly "on-message" all of the time. Implemented policies have not been noticeably improved through lack of debate and examination beforehand.
None of which takes away from Corbyn being a wuzzock for drifting into splits on an issue Labour will not have to decide.
Agree. I am old enough to remember when we had 'Cabinet' government rather than 'Prime Ministerial' - though in fairness, Cameron's (laziness/willingness to delegate - delete as appropriate) leaving minsters in place for long stretches is an improvement on his predecessors'. In a previous life we reckoned country managers needed at least three years in a position before they were adding value - the first to cock it up, the second to learn from their mistakes, the third to start getting it right.....of course we routinely moved people after two years......
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Thanks.So it looks like the Times front page lead is basically a reannouncement from last November, and possibly the previous parliament. So at least I've saved a few quid by not subscribing to the "newspaper of record" (and playback, it would appear).
The Tines says £500m per year will be spent over the next 5 years I.e. £2.5bn in total. This compares with £1.8bn in the last parliament, so an increase. However, £539m was spent in 2013 so not an annual increase over recent years.
She sat fast by an ingle, bleezing finely interview'd wi' care, treated divinely
As I glowr'd, amaz'd, and curious an exchange took place that made me furious to hear her lengthen'd, sage advices on tax revenues and North Sea prices
My knowledge of NI politics these days is largely gleaned from the odd snippet on Yesterday in Parliament which seems to show a sterile and bitter place that thinks the world owes them a living so I am grateful to Alastair showing some of the underlying complexities.
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
The north need a new vision of themselves and new opportunities for their young. They have an excellent education system but a haemorrhage of talent to the mainland. The politicians of both camps need to move on from past bitterness and find reasons for them to stay home. It will not be easy.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
It was the ending that scared me. With all those 'what happened next bit/to the characters/the banking/mortgage industries'
Morning all. By chance I have a houseful of Northern Irish overnight to critique this piece. All of them are sceptical that the public sector employment and benefit stats are correct, believing the truth to be far higher in each case. There is real hope that if Arlene Foster is brave she might be able to offer real leadership, being notably smarter than the average Northern Irish politician. And they all wanted me to say much more about Sinn Fein. But that would need another article.
'that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed'
That could easily describe many members of the House of Lords or MEPs.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
It was the ending that scared me. With all those 'what happened next bit/to the characters/the banking/mortgage industries'
Yes, so little has changed. And the authorities turn a blind eye to exploitation in the financial sector because they are so desperate to have them recapitalise themselves rather than using public money.
It is astonishing, for example, that those who miss sold interest rate swaps which destroyed so many small businesses did not have their fit and proper person permits torn up in front of them.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
It was the ending that scared me. With all those 'what happened next bit/to the characters/the banking/mortgage industries'
Iceland had the right idea. Till moral hazard has been eliminated*, the same thing in various guises will happen over and over. ANyone who thinks 2008 was the last time is a damned fool.
'that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed'
That could easily describe many members of the House of Lords or MEPs.
Nah, the sums they stole wouldn't cover the tips of the financiers. Still dishonest of course but buttons. The TARP program in the US, for example, which largely bought the crap that the banks could no longer sell to even the thickest suckers, ultimately ran to nearly $1 trillion. All the politicians in history could not steal that much.
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Thanks.So it looks like the Times front page lead is basically a reannouncement from last November, and possibly the previous parliament. So at least I've saved a few quid by not subscribing to the "newspaper of record" (and playback, it would appear).
To be fair If you want to criticise renouncements then Brown and the last Labour governments perfected the art by announcing the same policy and more often than not expenditure, over and over again albeit with a different twist or spin.
Any voting system is capable of throwing up enough MPs to provide a majority in Parliament. Including STV and AV, if that is how the electorate as a whole feels.
On your last point, Mr Quid, how many Tory MPs are described as "good constituency MPs", according to your definition? I suspect the answer is relatvely small.
Why do you ask about just Tory MPs?
Because your definition equated being "good constituency MPs" to acting as social workers (taken from the Tory Party handbook on the subject). Lib Dem MPs are historically good at working with their communities, I suspect that many Labour MPs are too. The Tory Party handbook despises this sort of thing - so I was wondering just how many Tory MPs you thought went in for being "good constituency MPs".
I wasn't aware of that. I've never read any Tory Party handbook on any subject - is there a PDF online? It would be interesting to read.
They are making themselves popular and are doing it deliberately , despair for their feeble opponents who cannot understand a government doing things that are good for the public and not just for themselves ad their chums.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
NI Ireland politics passes by most people in the rest of the UK . Apart from the almost exclusively religious aspect to it, no one really cares unless there is the likelihood of a hung parliament when what the Irish MP's might want /agree to comes into focus for a few nanoseconds..
Champagne socialists, meanwhile, clearly have a Scottish corollary, what might be called “champagne nationalists”. As the former Scottish Government policy chief Alex Bell observed last week, the recent “smattering” of news stories concerning SNP MPs have, ironically, revealed Scotland’s governing party to be “just like other British parties – composed of self-starting entrepreneurial types, Thatcher’s children to a person”.
Bell was referring to stories concerning property portfolios and undeclared business interests, generating a picture, as he put it, “of bustling aspirational types who see no wrong in getting rich”. Indeed, barely a week goes by without such reports featuring Alex Salmond, who’s fast becoming the Tony Blair of the SNP, apparently on a ceaseless quest to increase his income, almost as if he was a freelancer rather than a full-time MP.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
Don't be ridiculous! We have a drop, no appointment system at our local clinic - 3 mins walking distance. This is available twice a day and we can get an appointment with our registered GP for a specific medical case within 2 weeks.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
Champagne socialists, meanwhile, clearly have a Scottish corollary, what might be called “champagne nationalists”. As the former Scottish Government policy chief Alex Bell observed last week, the recent “smattering” of news stories concerning SNP MPs have, ironically, revealed Scotland’s governing party to be “just like other British parties – composed of self-starting entrepreneurial types, Thatcher’s children to a person”.
Bell was referring to stories concerning property portfolios and undeclared business interests, generating a picture, as he put it, “of bustling aspirational types who see no wrong in getting rich”. Indeed, barely a week goes by without such reports featuring Alex Salmond, who’s fast becoming the Tony Blair of the SNP, apparently on a ceaseless quest to increase his income, almost as if he was a freelancer rather than a full-time MP.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
Not all e.g. Dick Fuld of Lehmans saw his bank collapse but thanks for the review and I will see it this weekend
Ha Ha Ha , Tories want SNP to wear hair shirts and be poor , you could not make it up.
Not at all
Laying aside the intergenerational inequalities such hypocrisy propagates, perhaps more damaging is the impact on policy making, for in government or opposition these champagne nationalists and socialists retain a proclivity for gesture politics but no corresponding inclination to do much beyond that. The reason independent schooling is rarely discussed in Scotland is that privately-educated professionals disproportionately dominate (although to a lesser extent in politics), and the same is true of those with backgrounds in business, finance, consultancy and the upper echelons of the public sector.
So instead they tinker: making something “free” or tweaking a minor tax while using the word “radical” a lot. It’s why Trident looms so prominently in Corbyn or Sturgeon-generated discourse, and why campaigns to remove statues attracts zealous support from (by any definition) privileged undergraduates. Neither achieves anything concrete, certainly not for the worst off in society, but it’s immediate and makes them feel good about themselves.
'that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed'
That could easily describe many members of the House of Lords or MEPs.
MAPs can at least lose their seats at election time
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
You really need to stop being so utterly idiotic when dicussing FTPT, your tests are a nonsense and make no sense. It does not elect a PM, it does not elect a government and the vast majority of the public have absolutely no need or interest in a local representative.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
Any voting system is capable of throwing up enough MPs to provide a majority in Parliament. Including STV and AV, if that is how the electorate as a whole feels.
Contrariwise, the Coalition Government, from the point of view of the country, was one of the best we have had in recent years. Mr Cameron seemed to be much more comfortable with that than he does with the present set-up.
On your last point, Mr Quid, how many Tory MPs are described as "good constituency MPs", according to your definition? I suspect the answer is relatvely small.
A fair few Tory MPs I would imagine given the number who increased their majority last May
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
I am also going on Rodgers recommendation as he can choose a good movie and definitely the Oscars champ for betting. This one may well be more accurate but the fact that Rodger came straight out in support makes we a little wary of the possibility.
I agree with you though the banks and those in charge needed to be brought to account but weren't but were baled out as you point out. No doubt as been mentioned here many times more will come out of what occurred. I would have liked to have seen the exposed banks fail however the collateral damage would perhaps of been worse particularly to those at the bottom who bore no responsibility for the events both small time account holders and the staff. The perpetrators should not have been allowed to walk away as they did.
In regard to Hollywood films I always keep in mind a rewrite of history regularly happens. Think of a blue painted Mel Gibson or grabbing Enigma machines from submarines to name but two examples. Whereas there may be many facts in the story it's basically entertainment and a story at the end of the day that drives the box office receipts. The producers, Directors and those that finance the making of the film well know this. This is also not the first to deal with the financial crisis "Margin Call" being one of the other better known movies and also a number of documentaries so choose the one most suited to your political tastes I guess?
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
You make it sound as though it was possible to have a different decision given the facts on the ground. "Carson said "What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
You make it sound as though it was possible to have a different decision given the facts on the ground. "Carson said "What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
Carson was an idiot. The UK government were idiots. The Partition of Ireland is probably ahead of the partition of India and the Lines In The Sand as the most moronic and long lasting problem of the British Imperial legacy.
The worst part is that not only would it have prevented the significant problems that the UK has faced over the last 45 years but a substantial Protestant influence on an Irish state might well have mitigated all of its horrific problems with (effective) government by priests.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
I live in London and my surgery is very good for getting next day appointments.
Is it a myth or does it vary between surgeries ?
It has to be a myth.
There is simply no way that anyone would accept being unable to see their GP within 24 hours. I don't believe it is true anywhere in the UK.
It takes me two years to get an appointment normally but sometimes longer could even be three years?
Right now you can cut to the quick and tell everyone how great and so much better the Scottish system is over the English or Welsh system as she appear desperate to do. ( well ok maybe not the Welsh one)
Mr. Dair, I didn't delete anything, just replied to a comment you made a few minutes ago.
To remind you: in 2005, I think, Blair was surprised to be confronted by questions regarding the difficulty of getting a GP appointment within a reasonable timescale.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
I live in London and my surgery is very good for getting next day appointments.
Is it a myth or does it vary between surgeries ?
I looked into this in some detail a few years ago and don't think it's changed much. The general target is 48 hours (if you have an emergency you're supposed to go to A&E) and most surgeries seem to be able to offer that (or at least 72 hours) if you're not fussy about which GP you see. If it's got to be Dr X, naturally you have to wait till X is next free, which might be a few more days, especially if other patients love X too. There's a sensible natural selection here - people with trivial issues don't care who they see (anyone can decide if my broken toenail needs attention), people who are really worried about something can insist on the doctor they trust, and accept it takes a bit longer.
The irritating bit is that many surgeries still operate the ridiculous system that shocked Blair in 2005 - you must ring ASAP after 8am, if the line's busy hang up and try again until you get through. My surgery offers online booking and call-waiting if you ring up, both of which are sensible, but it's far from universal. Otherwise I think the system is fine and while the NHS has obvious strains, they aren't generally at the GP end.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
I live in London and my surgery is very good for getting next day appointments.
Is it a myth or does it vary between surgeries ?
It has to be a myth.
There is simply no way that anyone would accept being unable to see their GP within 24 hours. I don't believe it is true anywhere in the UK.
It takes me two years to get an appointment normally but sometimes longer could even be three years?
Right now you can cut to the quick and tell everyone how great and so much better the Scottish system is over the English or Welsh system as she appear desperate to do. ( well ok maybe not the Welsh one)
I don't believe people in England and Wales are unable to get appointments within 24 hours. It smacks of socialist propaganda.
It is nothing to do with Scotland or England. It is simply utter nonsense spouted by zealots with no basis in reality.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
I live in London and my surgery is very good for getting next day appointments.
Is it a myth or does it vary between surgeries ?
I looked into this in some detail a few years ago and don't think it's changed much. The general target is 48 hours (if you have an emergency you're supposed to go to A&E) and most surgeries seem to be able to offer that (or at least 72 hours) if you're not fussy about which GP you see. If it's got to be Dr X, naturally you have to wait till X is next free, which might be a few more days, especially if other patients love X too. There's a sensible natural selection here - people with trivial issues don't care who they see (anyone can decide if my broken toenail needs attention), people who are really worried about something can insist on the doctor they trust, and accept it takes a bit longer.
The irritating bit is that many surgeries still operate the ridiculous system that shocked Blair in 2005 - you must ring ASAP after 8am, if the line's busy hang up and try again until you get through. My surgery offers online booking and call-waiting if you ring up, both of which are sensible, but it's far from universal. Otherwise I think the system is fine and while the NHS has obvious strains, they aren't generally at the GP end.
My surgery has an online system and has done for 5 years. It's easier, you can now get appointments when you want them and you don't need to talk to anyone at the surgery . ( in an epidemic of flu hits not so easy of course) In the next small town the surgeries there seem not to want to use that system though.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
An unpublished report commissioned by Labour to explain its general election defeat savages its performance in the last parliament and implies the party may be heading in the wrong direction under Jeremy Corbyn if it wants to be re-elected.
The report - obtained by me and called "Emerging from the Darkness" - says "Labour negatives are deep and powerful".
It says crucial swing voters see the party as "nice" but "in thrall to the undeserving", "in denial" about its "appalling" track record on the economy, and with a former leader in Ed Miliband who was "weak and bumbling".
Mr. Dair, I didn't delete anything, just replied to a comment you made a few minutes ago.
To remind you: in 2005, I think, Blair was surprised to be confronted by questions regarding the difficulty of getting a GP appointment within a reasonable timescale.
When you click on the quote button to reply to a post it automatically presents the post you are replying to in a handily formatted form that you can annotate your post to. Which is why your post is in a grey box above my reply.
You delete that whenever you post, often making it very difficult to know what you are actually replying to.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
My GP in Chelsea gives same day appointments..always has done..
My GP gives same day appointments for emergencies if you call first thing in the morning. Otherwise you normally wait about a week.
I've moved a fair deal around the country over the years, and GP services seem very much a postcode lottery. They vary from atrocious to brilliant.
My local surgery has improved slightly since they've introduced a sort of triage system (though that's not what they call it): you often see a nurse practitioner or other professionals, and they decide if you get to see a GP or not. I presume that's cheaper.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Ha Ha Ha , Tories want SNP to wear hair shirts and be poor , you could not make it up.
Not at all
Laying aside the intergenerational inequalities such hypocrisy propagates, perhaps more damaging is the impact on policy making, for in government or opposition these champagne nationalists and socialists retain a proclivity for gesture politics but no corresponding inclination to do much beyond that. The reason independent schooling is rarely discussed in Scotland is that privately-educated professionals disproportionately dominate (although to a lesser extent in politics), and the same is true of those with backgrounds in business, finance, consultancy and the upper echelons of the public sector.
So instead they tinker: making something “free” or tweaking a minor tax while using the word “radical” a lot. It’s why Trident looms so prominently in Corbyn or Sturgeon-generated discourse, and why campaigns to remove statues attracts zealous support from (by any definition) privileged undergraduates. Neither achieves anything concrete, certainly not for the worst off in society, but it’s immediate and makes them feel good about themselves.
In English that means Tories are pissed off that SNP are popular due to people liking their policies and the only thing the Tories can come up with is SNPBAD. They may be crap but they are miles ahead of the nasty party and the other losers, that is the fact that normal people realise , by a country mile they are the best of the pack , not great but the only ones that can be polished.
Based on focus-group discussions with former Labour supporters who had switched allegiance to the Tories in England and the SNP in Scotland, it contains many troubling headlines for Labour, notably that "voters in England and Scotland alike decry Labour's 'dismal' track record on the economy"....
They liked Labour's values, but they struggled "to say what those values mean in practice". In one particularly stark summary of views, the report says "nowadays Labour is the party for down and outs, not 'people like me'".
As for SNP converts, they saw Labour as "an incompetent version of the Tories".
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
I live in London and my surgery is very good for getting next day appointments.
Is it a myth or does it vary between surgeries ?
It has to be a myth.
There is simply no way that anyone would accept being unable to see their GP within 24 hours. I don't believe it is true anywhere in the UK.
It takes me two years to get an appointment normally but sometimes longer could even be three years?
Right now you can cut to the quick and tell everyone how great and so much better the Scottish system is over the English or Welsh system as she appear desperate to do. ( well ok maybe not the Welsh one)
I don't believe people in England and Wales are unable to get appointments within 24 hours. It smacks of socialist propaganda.
It is nothing to do with Scotland or England. It is simply utter nonsense spouted by zealots with no basis in reality.
Those inferiority complexes always shine through, always think it is down to England versus Scotland. Why are the frothers on here so insecure.
Based on focus-group discussions with former Labour supporters who had switched allegiance to the Tories in England and the SNP in Scotland, it contains many troubling headlines for Labour, notably that "voters in England and Scotland alike decry Labour's 'dismal' track record on the economy"....
I also took Rogers recommendation and went on a wet and windy Sunday afternoon to see The Big Short, Mrs Dee would not come to see this film. I enjoyed it,and found much of it disturbing. Will it win any awards,not if my experience is repeated elsewhere, I was literally the only person in the audience. A 200 seat cinema.
In English that means Tories are pissed off that SNP are popular due to people liking their policies and the only thing the Tories can come up with is SNPBAD. They may be crap but they are miles ahead of the nasty party and the other losers, that is the fact that normal people realise , by a country mile they are the best of the pack , not great but the only ones that can be polished.
Thank's to Mr Peston we now have names for all the parties opposing the SNP.
@holland_tom: Nicola Sturgeon describes plan to hold a divisive referendum on the future of the country as 'selfish'. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Sorry, it's not even close to FPTP.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Because he lost the Electoral College which is elected by FPTP in almost every state. Educate yourself.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
Comments
Meanwhile The Great Scottish Blog War has hit the Scottish Press:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14226370.Shouting_down_those_who_don_t_share_your_narrow_vision_is_about_as_far_from_the_spirit_of_the_Yes_movement_as_you_can_get/
The author is the owner of the blog Bella Caledonia.
And in a HUGE SURPRISE....the SNP, once again, prioritises benefits for the better off (in this case, pensioners):
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14227150.SNP_rejects_poverty_advisor_s_call_to_strip_fuel_payments_from_rich_pensioners/
What ARE they up to? Trying to get re-elected?
Sherrington ended up in Ipswich, Barkla in Edinburgh.
Besides, I never claimed any of these people were from Liverpool. As an international metropolis in its heyday, the city attracted people from all over the country, indeed the world, who made their mark. Some stayed, some left. So what?
If you're looking for a born-and-bred Liverpudlian, there are plenty who made an impact, outside comedy or music (while not diminishing their peerless contributions).
Just a handful, from the top of my head.
Edward Rushton, blind anti-slavery campaigner who also established the world's oldest continuous school for the blind - in Liverpool.
14th Earl of Derby, political titan
Peter Ellis, architect of the "skyscraper"
William Ewart Gladstone, political titan.
John Hulley, Olympic pioneer, his games were held in Liverpool 30 years before "the Modern Oympiad"
Frank Hornby - how many million kids were educated and entertained by Meccano, Hornby Trains and Dinky Toys?
Billy Hitler, the Fuhrer's ne'er-do-well nephew...
(^_-)
Other great cities appear to have been better at re-inventing themselves, a never-ending process.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Jeremy Corbyn's Trident opposition shared by less than quarter of his own shadow cabinet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12116471/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyns-Trident-opposition-shared-by-less-than-quarter-of-his-own-shadow-cabinet.html
None of which takes away from Corbyn being a wuzzock for drifting into splits on an issue Labour will not have to decide.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-george-osborne-and-bill-gates-to-join-forces-to-end-malaria
interview'd wi' care, treated divinely
As I glowr'd, amaz'd, and curious
an exchange took place that made me furious
to hear her lengthen'd, sage advices
on tax revenues and North Sea prices
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/sturgeon-on-andrew-marr-show.html
Some real insight into NI politics there that I didn't appreciate - thanks.
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
The north need a new vision of themselves and new opportunities for their young. They have an excellent education system but a haemorrhage of talent to the mainland. The politicians of both camps need to move on from past bitterness and find reasons for them to stay home. It will not be easy.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
That could easily describe many members of the House of Lords or MEPs.
It is astonishing, for example, that those who miss sold interest rate swaps which destroyed so many small businesses did not have their fit and proper person permits torn up in front of them.
*Or well a better attempt than 2008 made.
Got through to my GP. And an appointment for tommorow morning.
Can't imagine that happening if I lived say in London.
EDIT, apologies thought I saw didn't in your post
Ha Ha Ha , Tories want SNP to wear hair shirts and be poor , you could not make it up.
Is that even possible?
Last time I called my GP I went the same day.
You really need to stop being so utterly idiotic when dicussing FTPT, your tests are a nonsense and make no sense. It does not elect a PM, it does not elect a government and the vast majority of the public have absolutely no need or interest in a local representative.
I agree with you though the banks and those in charge needed to be brought to account but weren't but were baled out as you point out. No doubt as been mentioned here many times more will come out of what occurred. I would have liked to have seen the exposed banks fail however the collateral damage would perhaps of been worse particularly to those at the bottom who bore no responsibility for the events both small time account holders and the staff. The perpetrators should not have been allowed to walk away as they did.
In regard to Hollywood films I always keep in mind a rewrite of history regularly happens. Think of a blue painted Mel Gibson or grabbing Enigma machines from submarines to name but two examples. Whereas there may be many facts in the story it's basically entertainment and a story at the end of the day that drives the box office receipts. The producers, Directors and those that finance the making of the film well know this. This is also not the first to deal with the financial crisis "Margin Call" being one of the other better known movies and also a number of documentaries so choose the one most suited to your political tastes I guess?
http://www.marketplace.org/2011/08/24/business/economy-40/top-five-films-financial-crisis
There is simply no way that anyone would accept being unable to see their GP within 24 hours. I don't believe it is true anywhere in the UK.
Yes indeed, but then they have peerages and jobs at 'charities' or (snigger) 'think tanks' to fall back on.
"Carson said "What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
I have no idea wtf you are replying to.
So Dave's not going to serve a full term?
The worst part is that not only would it have prevented the significant problems that the UK has faced over the last 45 years but a substantial Protestant influence on an Irish state might well have mitigated all of its horrific problems with (effective) government by priests.
Right now you can cut to the quick and tell everyone how great and so much better the Scottish system is over the English or Welsh system as she appear desperate to do. ( well ok maybe not the Welsh one)
To remind you: in 2005, I think, Blair was surprised to be confronted by questions regarding the difficulty of getting a GP appointment within a reasonable timescale.
The irritating bit is that many surgeries still operate the ridiculous system that shocked Blair in 2005 - you must ring ASAP after 8am, if the line's busy hang up and try again until you get through. My surgery offers online booking and call-waiting if you ring up, both of which are sensible, but it's far from universal. Otherwise I think the system is fine and while the NHS has obvious strains, they aren't generally at the GP end.
I fear all he has done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
#DontMessWithBurnleyLads
It is nothing to do with Scotland or England. It is simply utter nonsense spouted by zealots with no basis in reality.
In the next small town the surgeries there seem not to want to use that system though.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-25/revealed-secret-labour-report-calls-on-party-to-atone-for-its-past/
An unpublished report commissioned by Labour to explain its general election defeat savages its performance in the last parliament and implies the party may be heading in the wrong direction under Jeremy Corbyn if it wants to be re-elected.
The report - obtained by me and called "Emerging from the Darkness" - says "Labour negatives are deep and powerful".
It says crucial swing voters see the party as "nice" but "in thrall to the undeserving", "in denial" about its "appalling" track record on the economy, and with a former leader in Ed Miliband who was "weak and bumbling".
You delete that whenever you post, often making it very difficult to know what you are actually replying to.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Just ask President Gore.
Old Holborn
"Mate, don't stand up, it ruins the effect for the camera"
https://t.co/NviWqXMd7n
My local surgery has improved slightly since they've introduced a sort of triage system (though that's not what they call it): you often see a nurse practitioner or other professionals, and they decide if you get to see a GP or not. I presume that's cheaper.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
As for SNP converts, they saw Labour as "an incompetent version of the Tories".
They're not Red Tories. They're Incompetent Red Tories. Lawl.
They may be crap but they are miles ahead of the nasty party and the other losers, that is the fact that normal people realise , by a country mile they are the best of the pack , not great but the only ones that can be polished.
Based on focus-group discussions with former Labour supporters who had switched allegiance to the Tories in England and the SNP in Scotland, it contains many troubling headlines for Labour, notably that "voters in England and Scotland alike decry Labour's 'dismal' track record on the economy"....
They liked Labour's values, but they struggled "to say what those values mean in practice". In one particularly stark summary of views, the report says "nowadays Labour is the party for down and outs, not 'people like me'".
As for SNP converts, they saw Labour as "an incompetent version of the Tories".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Oh, wait...
I enjoyed it,and found much of it disturbing. Will it win any awards,not if my experience is repeated elsewhere, I was literally the only person in the audience. A 200 seat cinema.
I enjoyed Bridge of spies, more.
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
The Nasty Party.
The Incompetent Nasty Party.
And that's it.
OT rant: I hate seeing the word expert used to mean any MP who once read a book about something.
And try getting any service out of hours....or a Doctor's visit!