On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
Yes pity he left
But did he actually leave as such and if so why?
Ironically he was always the one who use to say to the likes of SeanT, etc ...... "You may say you're leaving PB.com, but you will always return" and in most cases he was proved to be correct.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
That may indeed be a factor.
Of course I meant CTA - missed the typo until too late as I was spending time sorting out my next post because of top posting.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
No, he didn't turn up last night. Haven't seen him in over a year. Hope he is well.
Thanks for that Sunil ...... I wonder if OGH or Nick Palmer might have heard from him of late please?
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
We shouldn't need an ECHR we should write it into the nation's constitution or bill of rights. And make constitutions changeable only through a significant majority. The problem with off-shore bodies that they try to make universal declarations which don't leave wriggle room for national democracies and upset people who will ask that all HR issues be abolished.
We haven’t got a constitution as such. Are you suggesting we should have a written one?
Justin124..Get real..everybody was at it.. Your generation did not invent sex or morals.
I was at university in the mid-70s and even then not 'everybody' was at it! Many couples who had been going out together for over 18 months were sleeping together - but quite a few were not. Some people still had high moral standards. To this day I would expect the kind of people who are active in the student Christian Union and other Church Societies to remain celibate until marriage.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
Mr. Thompson, I agree, but the good Doctor did talk about a break-up of the UK not just Scotland going its own way.
P.S. As a fine point of interest, has not Wales been integrated in legal and local government terms only since the 16th Century? If my memory serves (and that isn't what it was) it was legislation under Henry VIII that completed the work started by Edward I in the 13th century.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
You don't believe in democracy, do you?
Yes I do. What gave you that impression?
I can't imagine. Something to do with your wishing there were no Labour or LD (let alone Green) MPs. perhaps?
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
Mr. Thompson, I agree, but the good Doctor did talk about a break-up of the UK not just Scotland going its own way.
P.S. As a fine point of interest, has not Wales been integrated in legal and local government terms only since the 16th Century? If my memory serves (and that isn't what it was) it was legislation under Henry VIII that completed the work started by Edward I in the 13th century.
A Scottish vote for Independence dissolves the United Kingdom permanently regardless of whatever choices Wales or Northern Ireland make. The UK does not break-up and Scotland does not "separate" from the UK, the UK simply ceases to exist.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
Mr. Thompson, I agree, but the good Doctor did talk about a break-up of the UK not just Scotland going its own way.
P.S. As a fine point of interest, has not Wales been integrated in legal and local government terms only since the 16th Century? If my memory serves (and that isn't what it was) it was legislation under Henry VIII that completed the work started by Edward I in the 13th century.
I think it probably would have been worse under the Tories who would have used the boom years to reduce taxation further and thus make the funding of public services even more reliant on the quick sand of the financial sector, and debt fuelled economic growth. The Lawson boom years showed the Tories attraction to unsustainable economic growth fuelled by debt. Brown simply copied the play book.
And now the UK economy is just stuck. Austerity doesn't work as Osborne knows, and we cannot afford to spend our way out of this recession- we haven't got the money. So we are stuck- with poor productivity, crappy jobs, and economic growth fuelled once again by a housing market, household debt and immigration, and with a structural public deficit that is not going anywhere fast.
Last month I think we sold more new cars domestically for a decade. Is that a good or bad sign? The only thing that is powering our economy along is people taking out loans and buying stuff. As soon as that stops as it always does, then we are back to square one, except worse.
Labour was spending what it could afford- national debt was low and manageable (40% or so) and public spending as GDP was early 40's- for a European social, democratic country the public finances were in a pretty healthy shape. Even Osborne and Cameron committed themselves to the same.
And then came the banking crisis and the floor fell out. And the UK was heavily exposed to the financial sector.
And very cleverly the Tories and their cheerleaders managed to turn the whole debate skilfully onto Labour profligacy which pervades to this day rather than what is was which was a banking and financial crisis that whacked a huge chunk out of the public finances.
Since it was Brown (and his advisors Balls and Miliband) who left the public finances dependent on the financial sector and (because of their hubris in believing they had abolished the economic cycle) exposed to external financial shocks, that seems only fair.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The discovery gave Lambeth Palace cause to check canon law, as men born illegitimately were for centuries barred from becoming archbishops. A little-known change in the law dating to the Fifties removed that bar, leaving Archbishop Welby safe in his post.
I am curious as to why they felt the need to make that change at the time - it's the sort of thing I'd think the Church would not expect to come up, and so even if no one minded making the change it would not get around to being made.
They didn't. Parliament changed the law on inheritance/office holding, which affected the CofE as the Established Church. I don't think it's something they would have done off their own bat.
I must confess I was amused by @justin124's comments, for two reasons;
1) He's straightforwardly wrong (a quick look at Duff Cooper, Oswald Mosley, John Mortimer reveals that);
2) he's confused premarital and extra marital sex. The first was not merely normal, it was often quietly encouraged so men could be assured their brides were suitably - ahem - fertile. Extra marital sex by women was however rather frowned upon, for reasons that must be obvious at this moment.
Of course it is possible to draw up a list of people who engaged in fornication and adultery.That can be countered by a list of people who almost certainly did no such thing - Gladstone - Stanley Baldwin - Neville Chamberlain - Winston Churchill - Clement Attlee - Harold Macmillan - Alec Douglas-Home - John Smith - Harold Wilson - James Callaghan - HM the Queen. I should add that I recall reading an article on Justin Welby earlier this year in which he stated that the Church continues to disapprove of premarital sex
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
We shouldn't need an ECHR we should write it into the nation's constitution or bill of rights. And make constitutions changeable only through a significant majority. The problem with off-shore bodies that they try to make universal declarations which don't leave wriggle room for national democracies and upset people who will ask that all HR issues be abolished.
Indeed. The big problem with ECHR is that a supermajority of The Common, or a referendum, or both, can't change it. It is set in stone, but time and views and circumstances move on.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
Musharraf took over only after the war concluded, in part to save his reputation during the conflict. PM Sharif had to go into exile because of the coup.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
Revision of history LOL
When the socialists finally come to terms that their party, the Labour Party, despite numerous warnings from many, the EU, the IMF even the bloody Tories yet still ploughed on and created the scenario allowing this to happen. When Labour accept responsibility, apologise then they just might start winning some seats. Until then ........no. It's always someone else's fault when Labour feck up the economy yet again.
I hope he is well Peter. I always used to get you two mixed up. I remember well the pb horse racing syndicate that Peter managed for us- I am sure you were one of the members. Nick P was too. It was really good fun.
On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
No, he didn't turn up last night. Haven't seen him in over a year. Hope he is well.
Thanks for that Sunil ...... I wonder if OGH or Nick Palmer might have heard from him of late please?
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The discovery gave Lambeth Palace cause to check canon law, as men born illegitimately were for centuries barred from becoming archbishops. A little-known change in the law dating to the Fifties removed that bar, leaving Archbishop Welby safe in his post.
I am curious as to why they felt the need to make that change at the time - it's the sort of thing I'd think the Church would not expect to come up, and so even if no one minded making the change it would not get around to being made.
They didn't. Parliament changed the law on inheritance/office holding, which affected the CofE as the Established Church. I don't think it's something they would have done off their own bat.
I must confess I was amused by @justin124's comments, for two reasons;
1) He's straightforwardly wrong (a quick look at Duff Cooper, Oswald Mosley, John Mortimer reveals that);
2) he's confused premarital and extra marital sex. The first was not merely normal, it was often quietly encouraged so men could be assured their brides were suitably - ahem - fertile. Extra marital sex by women was however rather frowned upon, for reasons that must be obvious at this moment.
Of course it is possible to draw up a list of people who engaged in fornication and adultery.That can be countered by a list of people who almost certainly did no such thing - Gladstone - Stanley Baldwin - Neville Chamberlain - Winston Churchill - Clement Attlee - Harold Macmillan - Alec Douglas-Home - John Smith - Harold Wilson - James Callaghan - HM the Queen. I should add that I recall reading an article on Justin Welby earlier this year in which he stated that the Church continues to disapprove of premarital sex
Was the Lord God ever married to the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
I now regret not becoming a Tory MP in 2005
Really? Were you actually offered a winnable seat in 2005 .... from scratch so to speak? They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
(I previously replied to the wrong post - i.e. to Tyson instead of to TSE.
I was 26 and urged to put my name forward for a seat, one of them was unwinnable
Which would increase my chances of getting a winnable seat in 2010.
I declined for a variety of reasons. I thought I was temperamentally unsuited to be an MP. My sense of humour would get me into trouble, also it would have meant taking a lot of time off from work when my professional career was on a real upward trajectory.
The fact becoming an MP meant a pay cut was a minor issue.
As an aside, the unwinnable seat in 2005 is now a safe Tory seat.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
Nick please explain which other Anglo-Saxon democracies are subject to the ECHR and if they're not why don't they need to be?
Is America subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is Canada subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is Australia subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is New Zealand subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
America has a different tradition to us. But why are we so very different in your eyes to Canada, Australia or New Zealand all of whom have very similar Westminster Parliament based democracies?
EDIT: Besides we have a court that can override even democratically-elected governments. It's now called the Supreme Court.
Ireland is the only other Anglophone democracy subject to the ECHR!
Thank goodness Cameron has stamped out that sort of thing.
PFI is a perfectly valid thing to do on the right projects. The problem is that it has often been used on projects which were unsuitable, e.g. hospitals.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
Revision of history LOL
When the socialists finally come to terms that their party, the Labour Party, despite numerous warnings from many, the EU, the IMF even the bloody Tories yet still ploughed on and created the scenario allowing this to happen. When Labour accept responsibility, apologise then they just might start winning some seats. Until then ........no. It's always someone else's fault when Labour feck up the economy yet again.
I should add that I recall reading an article on Justin Welby earlier this year in which he stated that the Church continues to disapprove of premarital sex
Was the Lord God ever married to the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
We're supposed to do as God says, not as God does.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
I now regret not becoming a Tory MP in 2005
Really? Were you actually offered a winnable seat in 2005 .... from scratch so to speak? They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
(I previously replied to the wrong post - i.e. to Tyson instead of to TSE.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
Stunned. Suddenly oil (and other energy) never mattered...... At time of indie ref the reserves quoted by SNP were £1.5 trillion. Now the current value is what? Half that based on current prices?
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
We shouldn't need an ECHR we should write it into the nation's constitution or bill of rights. And make constitutions changeable only through a significant majority. The problem with off-shore bodies that they try to make universal declarations which don't leave wriggle room for national democracies and upset people who will ask that all HR issues be abolished.
We haven’t got a constitution as such. Are you suggesting we should have a written one?
Mr. Cole, the UK most certainly does have a constitution as such. We may not have a single written document (plus amendments) as per, say, the USA but we certainly do have a living, breathing constitution and courts to enforce it, at need.
The Uk's constitution is also written down, just in not one document. Historically I suggest that this has been a strength not a weakness as it has enabled the Country to adapt and change as the world moves on and needs change without the stress and strife that has affected other states or becoming moribund.
Our arrangements are not perfect, and at some stage in the not too distant future we will have to move away from the principle of universal suffrage democracy having the final say in how the Country is run, but we are probably better geared to cope with change than many nations who have a "Written Constitution".
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
Revision of history LOL
When the socialists finally come to terms that their party, the Labour Party, despite numerous warnings from many, the EU, the IMF even the bloody Tories yet still ploughed on and created the scenario allowing this to happen. When Labour accept responsibility, apologise then they just might start winning some seats. Until then ........no. It's always someone else's fault when Labour feck up the economy yet again.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
If the 'England votes leave, Scotland votes stay' scenario transpires, it'll be vastly entertaining to see how quickly all the English Brexiteers currently bleating about being on the receiving end of scaremongering and Project Fear revert to 'too wee, too poor, too stupid'.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
Stunned. Suddenly oil (and other energy) never mattered...... At time of indie ref the reserves quoted by SNP were £1.5 trillion. Now the current value is what? Half that based on current prices?
None of them have a clue what it is worth, only certain thing is that the benefits have been squandered over the years and Scotland is the only country ever to have oil and not benefit from it. It has value going forward but will never be crucial.
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Sunil/PfP: I've not heard from Peter the Punter since last year, now you mention it. I'll drop him a line and ask how things are going.
tyson: I don't know, but I'd guess that maybe half of newly elected MPs nourish a vague fancy that they might make it to the top, since they're only 4 promotions away - a bit like joining a medium-sized company as a junior manager. And there's usually someone useless near the top so you can think "Hey, if he can get that far...". But realism sets in pretty quickly and I should think only 5-10% still have any such fancies after they've been there for 5 years.
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
Philip Hammond has the unique ability to make Jezza (as dull as dishwater) Corbyn appear to be exhilarating and witty. Could you imagine the snoozefest- the debates, Jezza versus Hammond. Unbearable.
I really do think Corbyn's unique selling point during last years crazy summer- he was straight talking and all that- it lasts for a bit, but now he really does come across as insipid and just exceptionally boring and humourless. He really is grating.
You need to have some form of charisma, wit and charm to be any kind of leader in anything. Hammond and May have zilch. Hillary suffers too from being a bit boring- or corporate as Nick Palmer wisely said yesterday.
Gove for me is the one to watch, but I would still be amazed if Boris doesn't get it.
Hammond certainly has a lot more personality than Crabb. I cannot understand why anyone fancies the chances of the latter.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
If the 'England votes leave, Scotland votes stay' scenario transpires, it'll be vastly entertaining to see how quickly all the English Brexiteers currently bleating about being on the receiving end of scaremongering and Project Fear revert to 'too wee, too poor, too stupid'.
Hell no, I take the same view of Scotland as the EU for pretty much the same reasons, we are heading in different directions, we should depart at friends, and good luck to you.
Al-Beeb was celebrating the creation of 'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan' only last week.* Killing Christians and other 'non-believers' seems to strike a cord with them Gruniadistas {PBUH]....
Philip Hammond has the unique ability to make Jezza (as dull as dishwater) Corbyn appear to be exhilarating and witty. Could you imagine the snoozefest- the debates, Jezza versus Hammond. Unbearable.
I really do think Corbyn's unique selling point during last years crazy summer- he was straight talking and all that- it lasts for a bit, but now he really does come across as insipid and just exceptionally boring and humourless. He really is grating.
You need to have some form of charisma, wit and charm to be any kind of leader in anything. Hammond and May have zilch. Hillary suffers too from being a bit boring- or corporate as Nick Palmer wisely said yesterday.
Gove for me is the one to watch, but I would still be amazed if Boris doesn't get it.
Hammond certainly has a lot more personality than Crabb. I cannot understand why anyone fancies the chances of the latter.
I am steadily increasing my exposure to Gove. One to watch depending on EU result.
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, ...
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected ...
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
Stunned. Suddenly oil (and other energy) never mattered...... At time of indie ref the reserves quoted by SNP were £1.5 trillion. Now the current value is what? Half that based on current prices?
None of them have a clue what it is worth, only certain thing is that the benefits have been squandered over the years and Scotland is the only country ever to have oil and not benefit from it. It has value going forward but will never be crucial.
You have a new parliament building, free perscriptions, free tuition fees, pandas, football teams that are amongst the worst in europe and male life expectancy in parts of glasgow lower than parts of Africa. And the pleasure to be represented by socialists for 30+ years.
I see this detail in the Guardian report on the Panama stuff:
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or (2) direct rule or (3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
...
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
If the 'England votes leave, Scotland votes stay' scenario transpires, it'll be vastly entertaining to see how quickly all the English Brexiteers currently bleating about being on the receiving end of scaremongering and Project Fear revert to 'too wee, too poor, too stupid'.
Hell no, I take the same view of Scotland as the EU for pretty much the same reasons, we are heading in different directions, we should depart at friends, and good luck to you.
I agree. Let them have full socialism without anyone to blame in Westminster.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
It made 1% difference in GDP in one year, price of oil will not be a major factor for sure.
If the 'England votes leave, Scotland votes stay' scenario transpires, it'll be vastly entertaining to see how quickly all the English Brexiteers currently bleating about being on the receiving end of scaremongering and Project Fear revert to 'too wee, too poor, too stupid'.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
In around 1990, when I was 40, I took a Swiss girlfriend on a holiday in Brtain, and we stayed inter alia in the Royal Albion in Brighton. The receptionist twice referred to her as "your...er...companion" with an open sneer. I was incensed but my friend chuckled about it - "you British!"
You have a new parliament building, free perscriptions, free tuition fees, pandas, football teams that are amongst the worst in europe and male life expectancy in parts of glasgow lower than parts of Africa. And the pleasure to be represented by socialists for 30+ years.
Golly, some Brexiteers can manage the trick of bleating about being on the receiving end of scaremongering and Project Fear while simultaneously doing the 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' schtick. Good work!
I see this detail in the Guardian report on the Panama stuff:
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or (2) direct rule or (3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.
So Sven:
Apart from screwing the English-taxpayer (as a back-bencher outwith a pension [Golden now]) what did you do to address these issues? Apart from hate us English (of course)...?
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
Al-Beeb was celebrating the creation of 'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan' only last week.* Killing Christians and other 'non-believers' seems to strike a cord with them Gruniadistas {PBUH]....
* World-News Advert-filler at XX:15.
Pakistan was a Military Dictatorship 1958 to 1971, 1977 to 1988 and 1999 to 2008.
India has had one blemish on its democratic record, the so-called "Emergency" 1975 to 1977.
I see this detail in the Guardian report on the Panama stuff:
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or (2) direct rule or (3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.
Oh, Nick. It is shocking how naive you can be sometimes. I did a lot of work in our remaining Caribbean Territories for HMG, and the FCO were desperate for them to take independence, they wouldn't. The idea of direct rule was impossible; how do you feel about colonies? Isn't colonialism a dreadful thing? So there was, still is, a careful line to tread.
The next time we meet remind me to tell you about my experiences in the BVI, Turks and Caicos, and the rest. Bring some blood pressure tablets, you'll need them.
Quote" rel="NickPalmer">I see this detail in the Guardian report on the Panama stuff:
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or (2) direct rule or (3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.'
So Sven:
Apart from screwing the English-taxpayer (as a back-bencher outwith a pension [Golden now]) what did you do to address these issues? Apart from hate us English (of course)...?
:[MODERATED]:
Yes, Palmer and his mates had 13 years to do something about it but as usual did diddly squat, now of course we get the faux outrage.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
In around 1990, when I was 40, I took a Swiss girlfriend on a holiday in Brtain, and we stayed inter alia in the Royal Albion in Brighton. The receptionist twice referred to her as "your...er...companion" with an open sneer. I was incensed but my friend chuckled about it - "you British!"
I am sure that in some rural areas of Wales and Scotland there are still to be found proprietors of Guest Houses and small Hotels who would refuse to knowingly let rooms to unmarried couples. There was a Court case fairly recently where the decision went against the Hoteliers who had declined to give a room to a Gay couple. It was held to be discrimination. Had the owners applied the same rule to unmarried hetrosexual couples the discrimination issue would not really have arisen.
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
What's declined is not morality but hypocrisy and pomposity. Still, I don't suppose you can tell the difference...
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
What's declined is not morality but hypocrisy and pomposity. Still, I don't suppose you can tell the difference...
You have certainly provided a good example of the latter...
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
What's declined is not morality but hypocrisy and pomposity. Still, I don't suppose you can tell the difference...
You have certainly provided a good example of the latter...
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
The corollary of this is Bill Clinton not having sexual relations with that woman. To many older people, if the girl can't get pregnant, it's not sex, it's heavy petting.
Hammond is at a great price, especially given that Johnson could explode at any time, throwing filth all over, including on the other candidates carrying "question marks".
Johnson has
* arranged (with now convicted fraudulent liar Darius Guppy) to have Stuart Collier beaten up , * been sacked from the Tory front bench for lying (about bonking Petronella Wyatt)
* been sacked from the Times for lying (making up a story)
* tried to sell a very hard-to-believe line about how difficult it is to give up his foreign citizenship (which as I understand it, he hasn't given up yet)
That's a pattern of dishonesty that a scruffy hairdo and a buffoon act won't distract from.
As for Javid and Patel, the Tories aren't about to be led by an Asian. Be serious.
Cameron's record of taking drugs, smashing up restaurants and fornicating with pigs is one thing. Johnson's record of doing the usual Bullingdon Club stuff and in addition arranging to have the shit kicked out of a reporter and repeatedly telling lies is another. These aren't lies of the kind that all politicians tell whenever they open their mouths. He's repeatedly made stuff up, Aitken-style, and got himself sacked for it, both in the private sector and from public office.
After Cameron's "anti-corruption" conference starting on 12 May, there will be a second such conference in London on 23-25 May, on "Global Anti-Corruption Risk Management". The blurb reads like a flyer for Mossack Fonseca. Attend it, organised by Marcus Evans, and you'll "discover the most successful strategies for reducing third party risk and carrying out effective due diligence". Mossack Fonseca's speciality is KYC (Know Your Customer) compliance.
Marcus Evans will show you how to "Protect your Company from the Devastating Impact of Corruption; (to) Drive Innovation in your Global Compliance Regime and (to) Adopt the Most Successful Strategies for Combating Corruption". Innovation in your global compliance regime means tax dodging and money laundering (which are closely related).
Evans owns Ipswich football club and makes large donations to the LibDems. His group's regional head offices are in Dublin, Chicago and Kuala Lumpur.
Talking stuff up and down in the same city at the same time reminds me of Iceland. Oxfam are calling for independent oversight of the City of London Corporation.Things may well tank this year.
Days before the referendum, there will be a third big anti-corruption conference in London, the 10th Annual International Conference on Anti-Corruption - with a focus on Europe! Remain will tell us "EU = corrupt". They'll be right, but it won't help them, because they won't be able to persuade us that "London and Britain = clean". Everyone knows of the role of the British network in worldwide money laundering and criminality.
Diverse replies (having trouble with the reply button again):
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
I agree that attitudes towards sex have changed a lot since the 70s. I was only a child then, but I remember a staple scene from sitcoms was an unmarried couple pretending to be "Mr & Mrs Smith" to check in to a hotel room or whatever. The TV series Dallas was in the 80s, but I seem to recall it was seen as somewhat shocking at the time with all the implied sex.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
That is a very interesting comment and it rather confirms my view that many - particularly younger - people have an exaggerated sense of the extent to which the population as a whole condones the collapse in moral standards over the past 50 years. Re-'living in sin' I very much share your Aunt's opinion - though I am prepared to attend civil - rather than church - weddings under such circumstances.
The corollary of this is Bill Clinton not having sexual relations with that woman. To many older people, if the girl can't get pregnant, it's not sex, it's heavy petting.
Heavy petting is such a quaint term and I must admit to not being entirely convinced that a blow job counts as such. The judge at the Duke of Argyll divorce case described it as "disgusting sexual activities", but then that was the 60s.
Just come back from a morning's leafleting for "Leave" at a large public market - quite encouraging. Most of the work done for us by Cameron's £9 million leaflet drop announcement. That could be a most enormous clanger.
Just come back from a morning's leafleting for "Leave" at a large public market - quite encouraging. Most of the work done for us by Cameron's £9 million leaflet drop announcement. That could be a most enormous clanger.
If I shove it back in the box marked "Return To Sender" will I have to pay for the stamp?
Hammond is at a great price, especially given that Johnson could explode at any time, throwing filth all over, including on the other candidates carrying "question marks".
That was a heroic effort to see how many people you could insult and/or libel in the same post.
The discovery gave Lambeth Palace cause to check canon law, as men born illegitimately were for centuries barred from becoming archbishops. A little-known change in the law dating to the Fifties removed that bar, leaving Archbishop Welby safe in his post.
I am curious as to why they felt the need to make that change at the time - it's the sort of thing I'd think the Church would not expect to come up, and so even if no one minded making the change it would not get around to being made.
They didn't. Parliament changed the law on inheritance/office holding, which affected the CofE as the Established Church. I don't think it's something they would have done off their own bat.
I must confess I was amused by @justin124's comments, for two reasons;
1) He's straightforwardly wrong (a quick look at Duff Cooper, Oswald Mosley, John Mortimer reveals that);
2) he's confused premarital and extra marital sex. The first was not merely normal, it was often quietly encouraged so men could be assured their brides were suitably - ahem - fertile. Extra marital sex by women was however rather frowned upon, for reasons that must be obvious at this moment.
Of course it is possible to draw up a list of people who engaged in fornication and adultery.That can be countered by a list of people who almost certainly did no such thing - Gladstone - Stanley Baldwin - Neville Chamberlain - Winston Churchill - Clement Attlee - Harold Macmillan - Alec Douglas-Home - John Smith - Harold Wilson - James Callaghan - HM the Queen. I should add that I recall reading an article on Justin Welby earlier this year in which he stated that the Church continues to disapprove of premarital sex
In 1947 the British monarch and his wife refused to meet Eva Peron because she was illegitimate.
Just come back from a morning's leafleting for "Leave" at a large public market - quite encouraging. Most of the work done for us by Cameron's £9 million leaflet drop announcement. That could be a most enormous clanger.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Why would Wales and NI have to declare independence. Wales has been fully united with England since the 13th Century.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
You don't believe in democracy, do you?
Yes I do. What gave you that impression?
I can't imagine. Something to do with your wishing there were no Labour or LD (let alone Green) MPs. perhaps?
I don't wish there were no Labour or LD MPs. I just view getting rid of a whole bunch of Labour MPs we in England haven't elected as a bonus of Scots going independent.
I imagine in an independent England the Labour Party would essentially return to a more moderate New Labour in order to appeal to English swing voters. Be healthy for our democracy.
EDIT: Don't forget every New Labour victory included getting a majority of English seats, albeit on a Tory plurality in 05.
@pollytoynbee: Strange times:ppl call for Cameron to go-but need him to stay til referendum or they'll choose a Brexiteer PM.I'm backing Cameron??Gd grief!
@pollytoynbee: Strange times:ppl call for Cameron to go-but need him to stay til referendum or they'll choose a Brexiteer PM.I'm backing Cameron??Gd grief!
Incidentally, I recall how, when I first telephoned her home to inquire about her total incomings, David Walker, her other half, answered the phone and told me that she was too busy putting "her children to bed'' to talk to me. This seemed odd. It was only 6.30pm and Miss Toynbee's youngest child was then 21.
I can imagine a crisis meeting with the ISIS top bods as we speak....
So how is our media operation going. Have we dominated the western media with fear of our brutality?
With massive western help. The videos are promoted in the mainstream press, distributed by the western world's biggest video distributor, Youtube, and okayed (is "qualified" the Hollywood term?) by SITE, the Washington DC-based organisation run by the Israeli Rita Katz.
The propaganda is indeed designed to show Daesh's brutality. Anyone familiar with the history of psychological warfare will know that the Mongols did the same thing, to their very great advantage.
They will also know that it's not a good idea to promote your enemy's message for them, to your own home market. The western media - which includes Google and its Youtube operation - spreads the Daesh/ISIS "we're brutal" message throughout the west. I also heard a guy on the BBC specifically passing on the Daesh message to British Muslims in Bradford in particular. He wasn't agreeing with it. Quite the contrary. He was just saying "this is the message that Daesh want to give to Muslims in Bradford", and then he gave it, very clearly.
Something stinks very bad.
I'd urge people who are interested in Daesh psywar, or on the psywar between Russia and the West (which has already begun), to read some proper books on psywar. Start with Paul Linebarger's book, maybe.
Just come back from a morning's leafleting for "Leave" at a large public market - quite encouraging. Most of the work done for us by Cameron's £9 million leaflet drop announcement. That could be a most enormous clanger.
Cameron’s been lucky so far; is that luck beginning to run out?
You know as much about the inner workings of the Labour Party as I do about the Tories. To-day, those of its members who envisage it as a party of Government form a minority. Mostly, and this is surely true of JC himself, they prefer the purity and serenity of Opposition to the compromises of office.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
Yes I do. What gave you that impression?
I can't imagine. Something to do with your wishing there were no Labour or LD (let alone Green) MPs. perhaps?
I don't wish there were no Labour or LD MPs. I just view getting rid of a whole bunch of Labour MPs we in England haven't elected as a bonus of Scots going independent.
I imagine in an independent England the Labour Party would essentially return to a more moderate New Labour in order to appeal to English swing voters. Be healthy for our democracy.
EDIT: Don't forget every New Labour victory included getting a majority of English seats, albeit on a Tory plurality in 05.
Hammond is at a great price, especially given that Johnson could explode at any time, throwing filth all over, including on the other candidates carrying "question marks".
That was a heroic effort to see how many people you could insult and/or libel in the same post.
Is there something you disagree with, or do you just want to be insulting? Charles Wilson at the Times sacked Boris Johnson for lying, and said so. Michael Howard, then Tory leader, sacked Boris Johnson for lying, and said so. Boris Johnson discussed with his pal Darius Guppy getting Stuart Collier beaten up. You can find the tape of him doing so in about 10 seconds. Etc.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Nationalism is a funny business, so if Scotland leaves it may cause a rethink elsewhere.
In the remake of arrangements post Brexit, further re-arrangements may appeal.
Comments
Ironically he was always the one who use to say to the likes of SeanT, etc ...... "You may say you're leaving PB.com, but you will always return" and in most cases he was proved to be correct.
Though if they did getting rid of another 28 socialist MPs (plus a solitary Liberal) for the loss of only 11 MPs would be a nice added bonus to getting rid of 57 socialists in north Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1999
Of course I meant CTA - missed the typo until too late as I was spending time sorting out my next post because of top posting.
P.S. As a fine point of interest, has not Wales been integrated in legal and local government terms only since the 16th Century? If my memory serves (and that isn't what it was) it was legislation under Henry VIII that completed the work started by Edward I in the 13th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535_and_1542
But, BUT, these were repealed in 1993 to 1995.
And now the UK economy is just stuck. Austerity doesn't work as Osborne knows, and we cannot afford to spend our way out of this recession- we haven't got the money. So we are stuck- with poor productivity, crappy jobs, and economic growth fuelled once again by a housing market, household debt and immigration, and with a structural public deficit that is not going anywhere fast.
Last month I think we sold more new cars domestically for a decade. Is that a good or bad sign? The only thing that is powering our economy along is people taking out loans and buying stuff. As soon as that stops as it always does, then we are back to square one, except worse.
I should add that I recall reading an article on Justin Welby earlier this year in which he stated that the Church continues to disapprove of premarital sex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
I remember well the pb horse racing syndicate that Peter managed for us- I am sure you were one of the members. Nick P was too. It was really good fun.
Which would increase my chances of getting a winnable seat in 2010.
I declined for a variety of reasons. I thought I was temperamentally unsuited to be an MP. My sense of humour would get me into trouble, also it would have meant taking a lot of time off from work when my professional career was on a real upward trajectory.
The fact becoming an MP meant a pay cut was a minor issue.
As an aside, the unwinnable seat in 2005 is now a safe Tory seat.
So how is our media operation going. Have we dominated the western media with fear of our brutality?
Well boss, Trump is still dominating the airwaves and now is the most hated man in the world...
WHATTTT...but last week we beheaded 100 people, kidnapped 100's more....
Yes but Trump said that women who have illegal abortions should face a fine....
These westerners, I do not understand...
Was good to catch up with all those that were there,
Allegedly..
At time of indie ref the reserves quoted by SNP were £1.5 trillion. Now the current value is what? Half that based on current prices?
The Uk's constitution is also written down, just in not one document. Historically I suggest that this has been a strength not a weakness as it has enabled the Country to adapt and change as the world moves on and needs change without the stress and strife that has affected other states or becoming moribund.
Our arrangements are not perfect, and at some stage in the not too distant future we will have to move away from the principle of universal suffrage democracy having the final say in how the Country is run, but we are probably better geared to cope with change than many nations who have a "Written Constitution".
Not exactly the million man march...
Sunil/PfP: I've not heard from Peter the Punter since last year, now you mention it. I'll drop him a line and ask how things are going.
tyson: I don't know, but I'd guess that maybe half of newly elected MPs nourish a vague fancy that they might make it to the top, since they're only 4 promotions away - a bit like joining a medium-sized company as a junior manager. And there's usually someone useless near the top so you can think "Hey, if he can get that far...". But realism sets in pretty quickly and I should think only 5-10% still have any such fancies after they've been there for 5 years.
Justin: yes, when I was at uni in the 60s/70s, sex wasn't that universal either- I remember looking back 20 years later and thinking I'd been born too early. That said, if I'd spent a bit more time partying and a bit less time collecting signatures for the Danish Communist Party, it might have been a little different. :-)
Attitudes are continuing to change. A lot of young people feel sex is really No Big Deal, so they're baffled by the fuss when some celeb is caught out sending dodgy text photos. That attitude unfortunately sometimes spills over into shrugging off exploitation too, which is one reason why some young people went along with the criminal gangs in Rotherham et al - "X is nicer to me than my parents and he gave me an iphone, I suppose it's not that bad to sleep with him and his mates". Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard.
* World-News Advert-filler at XX:15.
I got married in 2000, but even so I had an Aunt who refused to come to our wedding on the grounds that it was immoral that I had lived "in sin" with my husband for a couple of years before the marriage. (Not a very elderly Aunt, either - probably in her mid 50s at the time.)
"...Teaching kids what's reasonable and what's not in a fast-changing culture is really hard."
Not in my experience it ain't. Bring up your children to respect others as individuals and the details take care of themselves.
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or
(2) direct rule or
(3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.
Oh...
Apart from screwing the English-taxpayer (as a back-bencher outwith a pension [Golden now]) what did you do to address these issues? Apart from hate us English (of course)...?
:[MODERATED]:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3529769/KFC-tragedy-Twitter-mourns-devastating-scenes-Cheltenham-drops-entire-fast-food-meal-pavement.html
India has had one blemish on its democratic record, the so-called "Emergency" 1975 to 1977.
The next time we meet remind me to tell you about my experiences in the BVI, Turks and Caicos, and the rest. Bring some blood pressure tablets, you'll need them.
"And by "country", we mean a sovereign state that is a member of the United Nations in its own right."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrFaFA3r7s
Quote" rel="NickPalmer">I see this detail in the Guardian report on the Panama stuff:
"Official letters obtained under freedom of information laws show ministers were “disappointed” at being stood up after numerous attempts to meet the leaders of the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands."
What? These are British territories and their leaders refuse to meet British Ministers? Who the hell do they think they are?
This is a separate issue from what British policy on tax avoidance should be - it's a straightforward challenge to the concept of being associated with Britain.
They should be given a choice (a referendum if that's what they want) of
(1) full transparency and compliance with what Britain thinks appropriate or
(2) direct rule or
(3) expulsion from any association with Britain - let them see how they get on as independent islands.'
So Sven:
Apart from screwing the English-taxpayer (as a back-bencher outwith a pension [Golden now]) what did you do to address these issues? Apart from hate us English (of course)...?
:[MODERATED]:
Yes, Palmer and his mates had 13 years to do something about it but as usual did diddly squat, now of course we get the faux outrage.
Pure comedy gold.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=george+harrison+bangladesh
Johnson has
* arranged (with now convicted fraudulent liar Darius Guppy) to have Stuart Collier beaten up
,
* been sacked from the Tory front bench for lying (about bonking Petronella Wyatt)
* been sacked from the Times for lying (making up a story)
* tried to sell a very hard-to-believe line about how difficult it is to give up his foreign citizenship (which as I understand it, he hasn't given up yet)
That's a pattern of dishonesty that a scruffy hairdo and a buffoon act won't distract from.
As for Javid and Patel, the Tories aren't about to be led by an Asian. Be serious.
Cameron's record of taking drugs, smashing up restaurants and fornicating with pigs is one thing. Johnson's record of doing the usual Bullingdon Club stuff and in addition arranging to have the shit kicked out of a reporter and repeatedly telling lies is another. These aren't lies of the kind that all politicians tell whenever they open their mouths. He's repeatedly made stuff up, Aitken-style, and got himself sacked for it, both in the private sector and from public office.
After Cameron's "anti-corruption" conference starting on 12 May, there will be a second such conference in London on 23-25 May, on "Global Anti-Corruption Risk Management". The blurb reads like a flyer for Mossack Fonseca. Attend it, organised by Marcus Evans, and you'll "discover the most successful strategies for reducing third party risk and carrying out effective due diligence". Mossack Fonseca's speciality is KYC (Know Your Customer) compliance.
Marcus Evans will show you how to "Protect your Company from the Devastating Impact of Corruption; (to) Drive Innovation in your Global Compliance Regime and (to) Adopt the Most Successful Strategies for Combating Corruption". Innovation in your global compliance regime means tax dodging and money laundering (which are closely related).
Evans owns Ipswich football club and makes large donations to the LibDems. His group's regional head offices are in Dublin, Chicago and Kuala Lumpur.
Talking stuff up and down in the same city at the same time reminds me of Iceland. Oxfam are calling for independent oversight of the City of London Corporation.Things may well tank this year.
Days before the referendum, there will be a third big anti-corruption conference in London, the 10th Annual International Conference on Anti-Corruption - with a focus on Europe! Remain will tell us "EU = corrupt". They'll be right, but it won't help them, because they won't be able to persuade us that "London and Britain = clean". Everyone knows of the role of the British network in worldwide money laundering and criminality.
Nicola was demanding Cameron to come clean earlier. She will have no problem obviously...
@Jamin2g: SkyNews asks to look at Nicola Sturgeon's tax returns, she says everything but yes. https://t.co/PxZfGe0MJu
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3530982/Angelina-Jolie-deliver-keynote-speech-global-refugee-crisis-special-day-live-programming-BBC.html
Apparently Polly Toynbee is supporting him...
I imagine in an independent England the Labour Party would essentially return to a more moderate New Labour in order to appeal to English swing voters. Be healthy for our democracy.
EDIT: Don't forget every New Labour victory included getting a majority of English seats, albeit on a Tory plurality in 05.
Interesting this pleasant individual rantings are ok with tw@tter, but the Milo Yiannopoulos guy is still not allowed his official verification back.
Unless her Twitter account has been hacked...
The propaganda is indeed designed to show Daesh's brutality. Anyone familiar with the history of psychological warfare will know that the Mongols did the same thing, to their very great advantage.
They will also know that it's not a good idea to promote your enemy's message for them, to your own home market. The western media - which includes Google and its Youtube operation - spreads the Daesh/ISIS "we're brutal" message throughout the west. I also heard a guy on the BBC specifically passing on the Daesh message to British Muslims in Bradford in particular. He wasn't agreeing with it. Quite the contrary. He was just saying "this is the message that Daesh want to give to Muslims in Bradford", and then he gave it, very clearly.
Something stinks very bad.
I'd urge people who are interested in Daesh psywar, or on the psywar between Russia and the West (which has already begun), to read some proper books on psywar. Start with Paul Linebarger's book, maybe.
NEW THREAD
Charles Wilson at the Times sacked Boris Johnson for lying, and said so.
Michael Howard, then Tory leader, sacked Boris Johnson for lying, and said so.
Boris Johnson discussed with his pal Darius Guppy getting Stuart Collier beaten up. You can find the tape of him doing so in about 10 seconds.
Etc.
In the remake of arrangements post Brexit, further re-arrangements may appeal.