Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
Really? Seems a somewhat niche issue to fall over.
“Niche”??
How “niche” would the issue be if Brussels shut the London stock exchange?
Interesting that the white paper on independence didn't propose a new stock exchange, and that London was good enough.
Saying that, if you had actual evidence to back up your claim that would certainly change my mind.
There are many, many nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism, and ranking them is really just a matter of judgment based on knowledge. I’d say that on both scores you are heavily out-ranked.
So I take it the closure of the exchanges being the second leading cause of the demise of the Tory party in Scotland is an opinion not shared widely?
Brilliant interview with Keir Starmer on Matt Fordes The Political Party .
I so wish he was Labour Leader .
Starmer is just a British Bill Shorten, even if they did get rid of Corbyn I think only a David Miliband return could save Labour now otherwise it is just a matter of time before the LDs overtake them, the only question being whether it is under Swinson or Umunna
I think that the most recent appointment of ambassador to the US to someone who was not a diplomat was the journalist Peter Jay in 1977.
Ah yes. Not entirely unrelated to the fact that his father-in-law was James Callaghan.
Coughcoughcorruptioncoughcough...
Nepotism certainly but not obviously corruption?
Hmm Thinks. I think it could be both.
These days, Civil Service interviews and appointments are very formal and done by rote: the interview questions cover known subjects and skillsets, the interviewers independently mark them according to preset criteria. There is an online exam prior to the interview, although there is often another technical test in the interview as well. It's quite difficult to get a Service post thru friend-of-a-friend these days. This is why I was so miffed when Toby Young got that job. And if, say Tony Blair Jr got a job on the same basis that would be equally wrong (come to think of it, Will Straw and BSIE fits too) and would also meet the meaning of "corruption" as well as "nepotism"
However I don't know if Service jobs were so formally appointed in the 70's, so might not have been "corruption" per se. So you might be right.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale thr true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour vote and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Scottish Labour are not going to win back any Yes voters from the SNP now and Richard Leonard does not have the charisma to even try to be able to do so.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would Tory or Brexit Party
You just don’t get it. You are going on as if the Union would still be in existence. If Labour switch sides, it is game over for the Union. We would be starting afresh. On both sides of the border.
You obviously don't get it.
The idea what the leadership of the FIFTH most popular party in Scotland decides to do will have any impact now on the independence debate is absurd. Given the vast majority of the remaining handful of voters still voting for the pathetic rump carcass of a party that is Scottish Labour are Unionists (all the Scottish Labour Nationalists having defected to the SNP long ago) all Labour switching sides would do would be to finally kill off Scottish Labour for good as its remaining voters defect to other Unionist parties.
It would have no impact on the fate of the Union whatsover
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
Peter Jay was Ambassador in late 1970s despite being Callaghan's son - in - law!
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale thr true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour vote and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Scottish Labour are not going to win back any Yes voters from the SNP now and Richard Leonard does not have the charisma to even try to be able to do so.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would Tory or Brexit Party
You just don’t get it. You are going on as if the Union would still be in existence. If Labour switch sides, it is game over for the Union. We would be starting afresh. On both sides of the border.
You obviously don't get it.
The idea what the leadership of the FIFTH most popular party in Scotland decides to do will have any impact now on the independence debate is absurd. Given the vast majority of the remaining handful of voters still voting for the pathetic rump carcass of a party that is Scottish Labour are Unionists (all the Scottish Labour Nationalists having defected to the SNP long ago) all Labour switching sides would do would be to finally kill off Scottish Labour for good as its remaining voters defect to other Unionist parties.
It would have no impact on the fate of the Union whatsover
If you really do believe that Scottish Labour are in fifth place, you should head over to Shadsy’s and make a killing.
Most seats: SNP 1/4 Labour 7/1 Tories 7/1 Lib Dems 50/1 Greens 200/1
(I really don’t know why I’m trying to educate Unionists. The more ignorant you remain, the better for my cause.)
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale thr true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour vote and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Scottish Labour are not going to win back any Yes voters from the SNP now and Richard Leonard does not have the charisma to even try to be able to do so.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would Tory or Brexit Party
You just don’t get it. You are going on as if the Union would still be in existence. If Labour switch sides, it is game over for the Union. We would be starting afresh. On both sides of the border.
You obviously don't get it.
The idea what the leadet on the fate of the Union whatsover
If you really do believe that Scottish Labour are in fifth place, you should head over to Shadsy’s and make a killing.
Most seats: SNP 1/4 Labour 7/1 Tories 7/1 Lib Dems 50/1 Greens 200/1
(I really don’t know why I’m trying to educate Unionists. The more ignorant you remain, the better for my cause.)
I may well do that, I think Scottish Labour will certainly fall behind the SNP, Scottish Tories and Scottish LDs at the next election. They might even fall behind the Brexit Party or Greens too
Umm, last time I posted, I'd had a bottle of Barolo and probably didn't make much sense. I have enjoyed a rather nice Pinot Noir tonight, so don't expect to make too much sense tonight either.
Anyhoo, can I put a couple of points forward as well as asking a couple of questions:
1) Brexit has, in my opinion, driven really nice (and intelligent) people, to become quite offensive. This is a site that was set up to discuss betting opportunities and yet we see people using terms such as 'traitor', swivel-eyed-loon', 'moron'. Please stop the abuse, since the posts have been more offensive I have returned to this site less and less. 2) Posters state "It will be a disaster"/"It will be so much better", can we just understand that this is an opinion or belief. As this is a betting site, unless the author of such comments has become a multi-millionaire through their betting on their opinions, please don't sit in front of your keyboard feeling more superior to the person you are responding to. 3). Last point: I used to navigate to this site every day. I have been a Conservative Association Chairman in the past as well as an agent for a successful Conservative candidate. I am not blinded to the the good deeds that a Conservative PM can, and should, do. Likewise, I do not believe that Labour (or for that matter, all other parties) are the devil incarnate. This site is the best for learning about politics and the ebb and flow of current political affairs. For that, OGH, and the others that run this site, I thank you.
So, now to the questions:
1) If we remain in the EU, why is that a bad thing - please be more specific than the 2016 campaign bullshit? 2) If we leave the EU, why is that a bad thing - once again, please be specific rather than giving 2016 campaign bullshit (or opinions)? 2) If we remain in the EU, and this is directed at people who would prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to change? 3) If we leave without a deal, what, specifically, will be the big issues, and, once again, this is directed at those people who would, even if it were a last resort, prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to mitigate?
Umm, last time I posted, I'd had a bottle of Barolo and probably didn't make much sense. I have enjoyed a rather nice Pinot Noir tonight, so don't expect to make too much sense tonight either.
Anyhoo, can I put a couple of points forward as well as asking a couple of questions:
1) Brexit has, in my opinion, driven really nice (and intelligent) people, to become quite offensive. This is a site that was set up to discuss betting opportunities and yet we see people using terms such as 'traitor', swivel-eyed-loon', 'moron'. Please stop the abuse, since the posts have been more offensive I have returned to this site less and less. 2) Posters state "It will be a disaster"/"It will be so much better", can we just understand that this is an opinion or belief. As this is a betting site, unless the author of such comments has become a multi-millionaire through their betting on their opinions, please don't sit in front of your keyboard feeling more superior to the person you are responding to. 3). Last point: I used to navigate to this site every day. I have been a Conservative Association Chairman in the past as well as an agent for a successful Conservative candidate. I am not blinded to the the good deeds that a Conservative PM can, and should, do. Likewise, I do not believe that Labour (or for that matter, all other parties) are the devil incarnate. This site is the best for learning about politics and the ebb and flow of current political affairs. For that, OGH, and the others that run this site, I thank you.
So, now to the questions:
1) If we remain in the EU, why is that a bad thing - please be more specific than the 2016 campaign bullshit? 2) If we leave the EU, why is that a bad thing - once again, please be specific rather than giving 2016 campaign bullshit (or opinions)? 2) If we remain in the EU, and this is directed at people who would prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to change? 3) If we leave without a deal, what, specifically, will be the big issues, and, once again, this is directed at those people who would, even if it were a last resort, prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to mitigate?
"For that, OGH, and the others that run this site, I thank you."
Take this - “This is a career crisis. If politicians are not going to offer policy, what are they going to offer?”
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
It seems to me that in recent years we have devalued the importance of judgment, of understanding the difference between “can” and “should”, the value of moral character. Having information is not the same as having the judgment to decide what to do with it. And that is where the real skill of the professional is. What is often forgotten, with the focus on data, is that at the heart of everything, are humans. The stuff that goes wrong - certainly in my sector - is because someone somewhere decided to do the wrong thing or failed to do the right thing. Understanding the human heart is the single most important skill we need, whatever we do, no matter how much data or information we have. Being trustworthy really matters. I often used to tell my team that what really marked us out was not our technical abilities and knowledge etc, brilliant as these were, but that people knew they could trust us, that when the bullets were flying overhead it was us the they wanted in the trenches beside them helping them.
Part of the reason for the rise in populist politicians is because they seem to speak to or about people as individuals, as humans. And that, coupled with a simple - if often simplistic - analysis of a mass of often confusing information is very attractive. Making sense of that information is harder than it seems. The devaluation of experience and wisdom and judgment - the malicious assumption that an elite is somehow wrong and out to get you - has been immensely damaging. And into that vacuum have flown people with little knowledge and superficially attractive solutions.
We are all better informed, if we want to be. Whether we are wiser is quite another matter.
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
That might work if you want a parliament of respected backbenchers or possibly some small local council.
But it wont if you want a government which actually does anything contentious.
And I think in the age of social media its going to be increasingly difficult to get politicians of the moral character and judgement you want.
It is precisely when something hard or contentious needs doing that you need someone with good judgment.
I think that the most recent appointment of ambassador to the US to someone who was not a diplomat was the journalist Peter Jay in 1977.
Ah yes. Not entirely unrelated to the fact that his father-in-law was James Callaghan.
Coughcoughcorruptioncoughcough...
Nepotism certainly but not obviously corruption?
Hmm Thinks. I think it could be both.
These days, Civil Service interviews and appointments are very formal and done by rote: the interview questions cover known subjects and skillsets, the interviewers independently mark them according to preset criteria. There is an online exam prior to the interview, although there is often another technical test in the interview as well. It's quite difficult to get a Service post thru friend-of-a-friend these days. This is why I was so miffed when Toby Young got that job. And if, say Tony Blair Jr got a job on the same basis that would be equally wrong (come to think of it, Will Straw and BSIE fits too) and would also meet the meaning of "corruption" as well as "nepotism"
However I don't know if Service jobs were so formally appointed in the 70's, so might not have been "corruption" per se. So you might be right.
But the subjects and skillsets are chosen to suit the person who will get the job.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour voters who are Unionists maybe a key part of the No Coalition but not the Labour leadership, if the Labour leadership abandons its Unionist voters by backing Yes they will defect to the LDs, the Brexit Party or Ruth Davidson's Tories who actually will still back the Union without winning any Yes voters back from the SNP. Thus the Labour leadership will finally be left with no voters and no party to lead and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.
Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?
The idea what the leadership of the FIFTH most popular party in Scotland decides to do will have any impact now on the independence debate is absurd. Given the vast majority of the remaining handful of voters still voting for the pathetic rump carcass of a party that is Scottish Labour are Unionists (all the Scottish Labour Nationalists having defected to the SNP long ago) all Labour switching sides would do would be to finally kill off Scottish Labour for good as its remaining voters defect to other Unionist parties.
It would have no impact on the fate of the Union whatsover
Structural factors are usually more important than opinion polls.
Having rested this evening I am about to pick up my youngest son, his partner and our two grandchildren to take them the 80 miles to Manchester Airport to catch their early morning holiday flight, before returning home for breakfast
Last time I did a night shift was in Edinburgh City Police in 1964 and in those days I came home from an early morning visit to the bakers to pick up delicious freshly made 'butteries'.
Having rested this evening I am about to pick up my youngest son, his partner and our two grandchildren to take them the 80 miles to Manchester Airport to catch their early morning holiday flight, before returning home for breakfast
Last time I did a night shift was in Edinburgh City Police in 1964 and in those days I came home from an early morning visit to the bakers to pick up delicious freshly made 'butteries'.
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
That might work if you want a parliament of respected backbenchers or possibly some small local council.
But it wont if you want a government which actually does anything contentious.
And I think in the age of social media its going to be increasingly difficult to get politicians of the moral character and judgement you want.
It is precisely when something hard or contentious needs doing that you need someone with good judgment.
Or perhaps you would get people who were against more than they were for.
And who gets to define this 'good judgement' ?
There's plenty of people with good judgement in their lives but would they be able to apply that in government ?
Isn't the logical extension of what you're looking for Plato's Guardians or even a Philosopher King ?
You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.
Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?
Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.
Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?
Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
In 2014 Slab had 41 MPs and 37 MSPs and 2 MEPs today it has just 7 MPs and 24 MSPs and 0 MSPs, it is a pale, weak shadow of what it used to be
SLab's gloom and doom never did much for the Union, hence Davidson's more sunny optimistic view of the UK has now seen the Scottish Tories become the main party of the Union against the SNP while SLab is equally losing Unionist Remainers to to the LDs, a process likely to accelerate if Swinson become a LD leader
The fact the guy has had problems in the past with Islamophobia and has caused the BBC to be sued in the past due to his inaccurate propaganda is unimportant, he is attacking Labour, priorities...
I am only disappointed in those who are disappointed, of course the BBC was going to use some bigoted ex Murdoch hack for the job. I'd like to think people would expect it by now.
Here we go. Attack the witness, again. They're not even pretending.
Yep. It is the Trump playbook. Incredible that it is from his polar opposites on the Left.
Or is it?
My cynicism about modern argument is entirely ecumenical and non-partisan, I can assure you. Everybody does it, we let them get away with it, and it's bad.
Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change. “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.” He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
Any and all splits in Unionist ranks are to be welcomed.
What is needed to appeal to a traditional Labour middle aged working class potential No voter in the Central belt is different to what is needed to appeal to a traditional Tory pensioner potential No voter in the Scottish borders so I have no problem with it
That old Lib Dem trick of giving contradictory messages to different geographical groups doesn’t work in the internet age. The No side will be a laughing stock within days of the campaign starting.
a) He didn't ask Trump supporters how important is it that Trump does not win a second term, and he didn't ask Democratic supporters how important is it that Trump does win a second term b) elections are not in a vaccum, they're against opponents. He should have asked which would you prefer to win: Trump or the Democratic candidate.
I'm not sure there's anything you can take from that graphic other than "pretty colours".
Here we go. Attack the witness, again. They're not even pretending.
Yep. It is the Trump playbook. Incredible that it is from his polar opposites on the Left.
Or is it?
My cynicism about modern argument is entirely ecumenical and non-partisan, I can assure you. Everybody does it, we let them get away with it, and it's bad.
I'm not often appreciative of the right wing press but the way they utterly destroy people to push their twisted agenda and the way they have successfully demonised minorities/refugees/immigrants over the years is pretty impressive. Pretty dark stuff but credit where credit is due they are very effective.
Sometimes to fight back you have to adopt some of their tactics, although the quote about staring too long into the abyss comes to mind.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
Peter Jay was Ambassador in late 1970s despite being Callaghan's son - in - law!
I don't think the word "despite" means what you think it does!
Their entire offer is the "politics of resentment" as the Economist labelled it a couple of months back. It's populist (angry, enemy-focused, evidence-light, non-factual, simplistic), and sprinkled with phrases used by the Bannonites and other far-right parties ("globalists", "liberal elites"). The (unelected, unremovable) leader most certainly is far-right: one glance at the Breaking Point poster will dispel any doubts. Yes, they are at the proto-fascist stage at the moment, with Farage content to play more of a Grillo role than a Salvini role, but it will evolve on a predictable path. The identities of the enemies will be expanded (who else to blame for the inevitable shit sandwich of Brexit?), and the calls for tougher action against "treachery" will grow.
The fact the guy has had problems in the past with Islamophobia and has caused the BBC to be sued in the past due to his inaccurate propaganda is unimportant, he is attacking Labour, priorities...
I am only disappointed in those who are disappointed, of course the BBC was going to use some bigoted ex Murdoch hack for the job. I'd like to think people would expect it by now.
Well, we certain expect this sort of reaction from you.
Never mind the message, just attack the messenger.
The fact the guy has had problems in the past with Islamophobia and has caused the BBC to be sued in the past due to his inaccurate propaganda is unimportant, he is attacking Labour, priorities...
I am only disappointed in those who are disappointed, of course the BBC was going to use some bigoted ex Murdoch hack for the job. I'd like to think people would expect it by now.
Well, we certain expect this sort of reaction from you.
Never mind the message, just attack the messenger.
Classy.
People deserve to know who is telling them a story, especially someone with a colourful history like the this guy. I can understand why you wouldn't want his previously discredited propaganda brought up, doesn't suit your own narrative.
I just wonder why the BBC couldn't get someone less conflicted for the documentary, could be a number of reasons I guess. Clearly the ex Sun journalist was seen as the man who could make the most interesting documentary, other reporters more focused on double checking and ensuring balance might have failed to make it as compelling...
Edit: Also no surprise to see Conservatives unbothered by Islamophobia, probably think of it as a recommendation!
Having rested this evening I am about to pick up my youngest son, his partner and our two grandchildren to take them the 80 miles to Manchester Airport to catch their early morning holiday flight, before returning home for breakfast
Last time I did a night shift was in Edinburgh City Police in 1964 and in those days I came home from an early morning visit to the bakers to pick up delicious freshly made 'butteries'.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
Peter Jay was Ambassador in late 1970s despite being Callaghan's son - in - law!
Mrs Thatcher also wanted to appoint a non-diplomat as Ambassador to the United States but Edward Heath declined the offer.
Which of these characters, then, would people rather have as Prime Minister – competent but conventional and a bit smug, or strong and amusing but unreliable and potentially dangerous? For 2017 Conservatives and those who voted Leave in the referendum, it’s Boris at a canter. But for voters as a whole, Jeremy Hunt comes out on top. Head to head against Jeremy Corbyn, Boris wins by 18 points – but Jeremy Hunt beats his Labour namesake by a 28-point margin. Forced to choose, Britain would prefer a Hunt-led Tory government to a Corbyn-led Labour one by 60 per cent to 40 per cent, but a Boris-led administration to its Corbynite alternative by just 8 points.
Comments
Thinks.
I think it could be both.
These days, Civil Service interviews and appointments are very formal and done by rote: the interview questions cover known subjects and skillsets, the interviewers independently mark them according to preset criteria. There is an online exam prior to the interview, although there is often another technical test in the interview as well. It's quite difficult to get a Service post thru friend-of-a-friend these days. This is why I was so miffed when Toby Young got that job. And if, say Tony Blair Jr got a job on the same basis that would be equally wrong (come to think of it, Will Straw and BSIE fits too) and would also meet the meaning of "corruption" as well as "nepotism"
However I don't know if Service jobs were so formally appointed in the 70's, so might not have been "corruption" per se. So you might be right.
The idea what the leadership of the FIFTH most popular party in Scotland decides to do will have any impact now on the independence debate is absurd. Given the vast majority of the remaining handful of voters still voting for the pathetic rump carcass of a party that is Scottish Labour are Unionists (all the Scottish Labour Nationalists having defected to the SNP long ago) all Labour switching sides would do would be to finally kill off Scottish Labour for good as its remaining voters defect to other Unionist parties.
It would have no impact on the fate of the Union whatsover
https://twitter.com/alexsobel/status/1147975396685578241
Stand by for the Williamsons of the world tweeting about the need for 'democratic control' of the Beeb and #changeiscoming etc etc
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1147973829391790080
The idea that any neutral observer would be following Bath Labour Party's twitter feed, that is.
Most seats:
SNP 1/4
Labour 7/1
Tories 7/1
Lib Dems 50/1
Greens 200/1
(I really don’t know why I’m trying to educate Unionists. The more ignorant you remain, the better for my cause.)
I have enjoyed a rather nice Pinot Noir tonight, so don't expect to make too much sense tonight either.
Anyhoo, can I put a couple of points forward as well as asking a couple of questions:
1) Brexit has, in my opinion, driven really nice (and intelligent) people, to become quite offensive. This is a site that was set up to discuss betting opportunities and yet we see people using terms such as 'traitor', swivel-eyed-loon', 'moron'. Please stop the abuse, since the posts have been more offensive I have returned to this site less and less.
2) Posters state "It will be a disaster"/"It will be so much better", can we just understand that this is an opinion or belief. As this is a betting site, unless the author of such comments has become a multi-millionaire through their betting on their opinions, please don't sit in front of your keyboard feeling more superior to the person you are responding to.
3). Last point: I used to navigate to this site every day. I have been a Conservative Association Chairman in the past as well as an agent for a successful Conservative candidate. I am not blinded to the the good deeds that a Conservative PM can, and should, do. Likewise, I do not believe that Labour (or for that matter, all other parties) are the devil incarnate. This site is the best for learning about politics and the ebb and flow of current political affairs. For that, OGH, and the others that run this site, I thank you.
So, now to the questions:
1) If we remain in the EU, why is that a bad thing - please be more specific than the 2016 campaign bullshit?
2) If we leave the EU, why is that a bad thing - once again, please be specific rather than giving 2016 campaign bullshit (or opinions)?
2) If we remain in the EU, and this is directed at people who would prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to change?
3) If we leave without a deal, what, specifically, will be the big issues, and, once again, this is directed at those people who would, even if it were a last resort, prefer that option, what are the drawbacks that we would seek to mitigate?
Not just on this site. Pretty much everywhere.
Amen to that!
Or is it?
Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?
And once you do that the denigrating and abuse follows.
People need to be more open minded and ask questions of all sides.
https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg/status/1147879952488062976
Even though they are just being fed malignant propaganda to spew out.
Last time I did a night shift was in Edinburgh City Police in 1964 and in those days I came home from an early morning visit to the bakers to pick up delicious freshly made 'butteries'.
Happy memories
And who gets to define this 'good judgement' ?
There's plenty of people with good judgement in their lives but would they be able to apply that in government ?
Isn't the logical extension of what you're looking for Plato's Guardians or even a Philosopher King ?
Nothing changes...
https://twitter.com/D_Raval/status/1147991682530578433
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148016422783803392
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148016423735836674
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148016424864104448
SLab's gloom and doom never did much for the Union, hence Davidson's more sunny optimistic view of the UK has now seen the Scottish Tories become the main party of the Union against the SNP while SLab is equally losing Unionist Remainers to to the LDs, a process likely to accelerate if Swinson become a LD leader
I am only disappointed in those who are disappointed, of course the BBC was going to use some bigoted ex Murdoch hack for the job. I'd like to think people would expect it by now.
a) He didn't ask Trump supporters how important is it that Trump does not win a second term, and he didn't ask Democratic supporters how important is it that Trump does win a second term
b) elections are not in a vaccum, they're against opponents. He should have asked which would you prefer to win: Trump or the Democratic candidate.
I'm not sure there's anything you can take from that graphic other than "pretty colours".
Sometimes to fight back you have to adopt some of their tactics, although the quote about staring too long into the abyss comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G8YHWbi-9U
They stink of 1932.
What are the benefits of Brexit? Any timeline you like.
Never mind the message, just attack the messenger.
Classy.
I just wonder why the BBC couldn't get someone less conflicted for the documentary, could be a number of reasons I guess. Clearly the ex Sun journalist was seen as the man who could make the most interesting documentary, other reporters more focused on double checking and ensuring balance might have failed to make it as compelling...
Edit: Also no surprise to see Conservatives unbothered by Islamophobia, probably think of it as a recommendation!
https://twitter.com/djskelton/status/1147447432885592064?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2018/jul/05/buttery-rowies-traditional-scottish-pastry-scotland-aberdeen-aberdeenshire
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1147856181551075328?s=21
Who knew?
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/