1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.
The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.
To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.
This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
It's a bit wierd that someone would find this passive aggressive.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
If we had offered citizenship with residency before the 1997 deal, then there would have been no deal. The Chinese government was quite specific about that.
They would have gone with their original plan - march in, arrest everyone in the existing civil institutions and replace them, full Chinese mainland law.
The deal that Patten talked them into was good for China and Hong Kong. The Chinese are now tearing up that deal. If we do nothing, then that will be noted on the value of our agreements going forward.
On 7 May 2012 the University of Cambridge granted my Irish great-uncle, a 31 year-old doctor, a certificate stating that he had proved himself by -
“his KNOWLEDGE and SKILL in SANITARY SCIENCE, to wit in Chemistry and Physics in the causes and prevention of Epidemic and Infectious Diseases and in the means of remedying or ameliorating those Circumstances and Conditions of life which are know to be injurious to health as well as in the Laws of the Realm relating to Public Health is CERTIFIED to be well qualified in respect of Knowledge and Skill aforesaid to fulfil the Duties of a Medical Officer of Health.”
On 8 September 1915, having joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, he died of his wounds. Septicaemia, ironically enough. His family did not realise how ill he was.
Epidemic and Infectious Diseases are always with us. And always will be.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.
The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.
To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.
This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.
There are many things we can and should do. The first and most obvious is, as I said earlier, to give all HK citizens the right of settlement in the UK. We agreed with China that this would not happen as part of a package of agreements that China is now reneging on. As such we would be perfectly justified in extending those rights. That in itself would massively undermine Hong Kong's status as a financial centre if the Chinese chose to continue to erode democracy there.
We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.
"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.
Restricting what companies could put into employee pension funds (to increasing corporation tax) and removing the ability to reclaim the 10% dividend withholding tax if you didn't have taxable income to set it against. Both screwed pension funds and partly lead to the pension disaster and were effectively just hidden taxes on employees that they just didn't see and weren't aware of (ie moving funds from pensions to the treasury)
Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.
The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.
To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.
This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.
There are many things we can and should do. The first and most obvious is, as I said earlier, to give all HK citizens the right of settlement in the UK. We agreed with China that this would not happen as part of a package of agreements that China is now reneging on. As such we would be perfectly justified in extending those rights. That in itself would massively undermine Hong Kong's status as a financial centre if the Chinese chose to continue to erode democracy there.
We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.
Agree with all this. Let’s hope that the government maintains the spine it appears to have developed.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled
A Stalin to Mr Bean level loss of reputation.
To pursue the Stalin thing, you could certainly imagine Dom as one of those high level apparatchiks finagling himself and his family onto the 4.15 to Kuibyshev in December of '41. Different times, same people.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.
5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.
That’s its population, not its size.
Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
The question for the House will be -
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt, it is a question of accepting reality.
The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.
To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.
This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.
There are many things we can and should do. The first and most obvious is, as I said earlier, to give all HK citizens the right of settlement in the UK. We agreed with China that this would not happen as part of a package of agreements that China is now reneging on. As such we would be perfectly justified in extending those rights. That in itself would massively undermine Hong Kong's status as a financial centre if the Chinese chose to continue to erode democracy there.
We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.
What shall we do about the humans rights abuses in the US? What do we do if they get 10 times worse over the next few years which is quite plausible?
Today is the 50th day since the last time electricity was generated using coal in the UK.
At this moment, we have 16.3% generated from wind, 33.3% generated from Solar, and 0.75% from hydro.
However, two caveats:
1) Demand’s on the floor (apparently there’s some medical problem or other that has shut loads of factories);
2) The reason we have so much solar is because we have had the driest, warmest and sunniest May since a freak spring in 1896. If somebody wishes to convince me that the lack of particles in the air is not linked to this, I am eager to be persuaded but you may find it uphill work.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings
Voting intention more relevant.
Every party leader who took their party into power and won the next general election and led on approval ratings also saw their party lead on voting intention too.
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
There have been a lot of staff cuts in journalism in recent years. Even so this seems a bit much. Is she expected to write on other subjects at the same time?
I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.
Golden economic legacy is a creative way to describe the denuded public realm. Hats off to you.
Denuded public realm is a creative way to describe less taxpayer's money being wasted. Hats off to you.
And waste of taxpayers money is a pretty rum way of describing nudging public services up towards the level one might expect from a wealthy European nation.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.
5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.
That’s its population, not its size.
Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.
Having spent all my time debating Hyufd and Justin, who will go through some quite extraordinary contortions to avoid an admitting an error, I have become the pedant’s pedant.
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.
5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.
That’s its population, not its size.
Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.
When anyone says “England is ten times bigger than Scotland” the meaning is entirely clear.
I detect a strain of Celtic inferiority complex at work
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
An interesting list would be a Tory holds in 1997 that are no longer Tory.
Off-hand the only one I can think of is Westmorland and Lonsdale. Are there any others?
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
Tynemouth and to a lesser extent North Shields (also in the constituency) is a yuppy commuter town for Newcastle now. Can’t see it going Tory again in a hurry.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
The question for the House will be -
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.
Clumsy.
Perhaps. Eye of the beholder.
Just so long as you're not now trying to back out. Because that would be poor form.
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.
5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.
That’s its population, not its size.
Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.
When anyone says “England is ten times bigger than Scotland” the meaning is entirely clear.
I detect a strain of Celtic inferiority complex at work
I applaud your philosophical acceptance of Cornwall being a diddy wee place.
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
Another 'profession' where thought is dominated by the echo chamber.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings
Mike, how do you square the circle of Corbyn's apparent toxicity and his 40% of the electorate in 2017?
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
Wales is twice the size of Yorkshire.
5.3 million in Yorkshire, 3.1 million in Wales.
That’s its population, not its size.
Do you think I hadnt noticed? It makes more sense for coverage to be related to people rather than sq metres. Anyway, you know perfectly well what I am saying, as do other readers, whether you or they agree or not.
When anyone says “England is ten times bigger than Scotland” the meaning is entirely clear.
I detect a strain of Celtic inferiority complex at work
I applaud your philosophical acceptance of Cornwall being a diddy wee place.
Although, of course, when Sean Thomas goes home to Cornwall the population mysteriously trebles.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings
Mike, how do you square the circle of Corbyn's apparent toxicity and his 40% of the electorate in 2017?
Corbyn was peak meme in 2017, and no where near as toxic as he was in 2019.
Today is the 50th day since the last time electricity was generated using coal in the UK.
At this moment, we have 16.3% generated from wind, 33.3% generated from Solar, and 0.75% from hydro.
However, two caveats:
1) Demand’s on the floor (apparently there’s some medical problem or other that has shut loads of factories);
2) The reason we have so much solar is because we have had the driest, warmest and sunniest May since a freak spring in 1896. If somebody wishes to convince me that the lack of particles in the air is not linked to this, I am eager to be persuaded but you may find it uphill work.
Weather patterns, not pollution, and blocking anti-cyclones.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
We have friends from New Zealand who lived in London from around 1996 until 2006 before they went home and started a family. A couple of years ago they all came over to show their kids rounds where they lived etc. When they returned to where they'd lived in London (Maida Vale area) they were shocked at how downhill the area had gone.
It's quite disturbing how shabby many parts of the country have become in the last decade.
I can't really speak for the the last decade, but I went on a slow canal boat tour for many months through central England (Wiltshire to Leeds) in 2011/2012. Many towns were lovely, but many others were in a terrible state and reeking of hopelessness.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.
Restricting what companies could put into employee pension funds (to increasing corporation tax) and removing the ability to reclaim the 10% dividend withholding tax if you didn't have taxable income to set it against. Both screwed pension funds and partly lead to the pension disaster and were effectively just hidden taxes on employees that they just didn't see and weren't aware of (ie moving funds from pensions to the treasury)
Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).
And having venting my spleen on what Gordon did wrong it is only fair to say what I thought Labour did right (Tony rather than Gordon though).
I thought they started really well in 1997 by announcing at the beginning the independence of the Bank of England and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The Tories should be really ashamed they did not do the latter. I hope my memory is correct on those events.
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
There have been a lot of staff cuts in journalism in recent years. Even so this seems a bit much. Is she expected to write on other subjects at the same time?
Quite possibly - she was rather excited at being on the hot topic. I tried to be helpful rather than judgemental. I think I sent about 30 links - UK, European, US - all official sites with lots of data.
To be clear - she is doing the background that will get written up under others names. Story research, I suppose.
It is telling that she is at struggles-with-excel-sum-formula level of data science.
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
An interesting list would be a Tory holds in 1997 that are no longer Tory.
Off-hand the only one I can think of is Westmorland and Lonsdale. Are there any others?
Edit - Canterbury as well, of course.
Canterbury is the only seat the Tories held in 1997 that Labour won in 2019
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
An interesting list would be a Tory holds in 1997 that are no longer Tory.
Off-hand the only one I can think of is Westmorland and Lonsdale. Are there any others?
Edit - Canterbury as well, of course.
Canterbury is the only seat the Tories held in 1997 they lost in 2019
Fairly sure they held Westmorland and Lonsdale in 1997 as well. There can’t be many others though. They would all have to be to Labour, the Liberal Democrats or Greens given they held no seats outside England.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
The question for the House will be -
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.
Clumsy.
Quite a defensive question that given that the prior spending wasn't a cause of it at all, and that when Darling opened the taps in 2018 it was to keep the crisis from becoming a meltdown.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
tim on here was always going on about Cameron's hair. His avatar was of a bald David Cameron. Ed Miliband was constantly judged by his appearance, as was Jeremy Corbyn. Farage is mocked for his teeth and clothes. So I dont think it's correct to say it's only female politicans that have this fuss made of their appearance, or that Digby Jones is obsessed by Nicola Sturgeon's. He has just made a comment about her.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
A list of Tory losses in 1997, which have not returned to Tory since, would also be interesting.
Disaster movies always irritated me. Panic, looting, heavily armed gangs of Yahoo's roaming around at the first prospect of an existential threat to humanity. People simply wouldn't react like that I maintained. Hollywood bollocks. Looks like they had a profound understanding of what really constitutes American Exceptionalism.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
tim on here was always going on about Cameron's hair. His avatar was of a bald David Cameron. Ed Miliband was constantly judged by his appearance, as was Jeremy Corbyn. Farage is mocked for his teeth and clothes. So I dont think it's correct to say it's only female politicans that have this fuss made of their appearance, or that Digby Jones is obsessed by Nicola Sturgeon's. He has just made a comment about her.
Of course its not completely one sided. Most successful women think they get judged on looks more than their male peers though.
I think they are probably right, but even if they are not, knowing that that is their view, I am not surprised if they make a comment about it now and again.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
It's a bit wierd that someone would find this passive aggressive.
Well, to me it looks like some one has made a passing comment, that could be interpreted as a compliment, about her hair, and she has used the words "obsessed" and "weird" to describe them in response. Maybe passive aggressive is the wrong term, it's more like a teenage girls reaction
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
Still a hideous experience, due to the greater number of people it has to shift around since then.
Away from politics it's important to keep in mind the little things that can make us smile.
It's been interesting to see how TV shows have reinvented themselves for social distancing but socially distanced Sesame Street has to be one of the funniest things I've seen. Not watching it myself but keep hearing giggles of laughter from the kids as they watch Elmo having Zoom style conversations with Cookie Monster and other friends.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
The suburbs in zone 2/3 are miles better now and the centre/city/west end is less interesting for residents/workers but better for tourists.
On 7 May 2012 the University of Cambridge granted my Irish great-uncle, a 31 year-old doctor, a certificate stating that he had proved himself by -
“his KNOWLEDGE and SKILL in SANITARY SCIENCE, to wit in Chemistry and Physics in the causes and prevention of Epidemic and Infectious Diseases and in the means of remedying or ameliorating those Circumstances and Conditions of life which are know to be injurious to health as well as in the Laws of the Realm relating to Public Health is CERTIFIED to be well qualified in respect of Knowledge and Skill aforesaid to fulfil the Duties of a Medical Officer of Health.”
On 8 September 1915, having joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, he died of his wounds. Septicaemia, ironically enough. His family did not realise how ill he was.
Epidemic and Infectious Diseases are always with us. And always will be.
2012? 1915? Did his friends just call him The Doctor, by any chance?
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
There have been a lot of staff cuts in journalism in recent years. Even so this seems a bit much. Is she expected to write on other subjects at the same time?
Quite possibly - she was rather excited at being on the hot topic. I tried to be helpful rather than judgemental. I think I sent about 30 links - UK, European, US - all official sites with lots of data.
To be clear - she is doing the background that will get written up under others names. Story research, I suppose.
It is telling that she is at struggles-with-excel-sum-formula level of data science.
This last sentence is like saying a pilot is just about able to land a toy aircraft on the coffee table.
Man alive, if God had been asked to devise 10 weeks of lockdown weather to entice people out to kill Covid in the UV, He could not have done a better job than has been presented to us.
I genuinely can't remember a better run of beautifully clement weather in my life.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997
I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’
Fair point.
I'm here for the historical references, book talk and puerile shite, mind.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997
I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’
Spending warm summer days indoors Writing frightening verse of a strange haired girl with a lack of mirth
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
There have been a lot of staff cuts in journalism in recent years. Even so this seems a bit much. Is she expected to write on other subjects at the same time?
Quite possibly - she was rather excited at being on the hot topic. I tried to be helpful rather than judgemental. I think I sent about 30 links - UK, European, US - all official sites with lots of data.
To be clear - she is doing the background that will get written up under others names. Story research, I suppose.
It is telling that she is at struggles-with-excel-sum-formula level of data science.
This last sentence is like saying a pilot is just about able to land a toy aircraft on the coffee table.
No, it isn't. Someone who could land a toy aircraft on a coffee table would have some flying skills.
Struggling with auto-sum in Excel is the level of throwing one of those kids gliders, made out of a couple of pieces of polystyrene, in the park. And hitting the ground with it.
"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.
Restricting what companies could put into employee pension funds (to increasing corporation tax) and removing the ability to reclaim the 10% dividend withholding tax if you didn't have taxable income to set it against. Both screwed pension funds and partly lead to the pension disaster and were effectively just hidden taxes on employees that they just didn't see and weren't aware of (ie moving funds from pensions to the treasury)
Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).
And having venting my spleen on what Gordon did wrong it is only fair to say what I thought Labour did right (Tony rather than Gordon though).
I thought they started really well in 1997 by announcing at the beginning the independence of the Bank of England and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The Tories should be really ashamed they did not do the latter. I hope my memory is correct on those events.
Brown has lots on the credit side. Not least the global leadership he showed post Crash. That was awesome.
But one more for the debits - his scheming to become PM became a problem.
My overall view is underrated PM overrated Chancellor.
How about a list of Labour's 1997 gains which have been continually Labour ever since:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW Sheffield Hallam Lancaster Chester Wirral W Hove Brighton Kemptown Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ealing Acton Brentford Ilford N Putney Battersea Croydon C Cardiff N Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
A list of Tory losses in 1997, which have not returned to Tory since, would also be interesting.
Conservative losses 1997 to Labour and never regained:
Tynemouth Leeds NE Batley Wirral S Crosby / Sefton C Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham Hall Green Southampton Test Harrow W Brent N Ealing N Hayes Westminster N Eltham Mitcham
Plus to the SNP
Edinburgh Pentlands / SW Perth
Plus losses to Labour and which have been won by the LibDems also subsequently:
Leeds NW Bristol W
Plus loss to Labour which has been won by Green subsequently:
Brighton Pavillion
Plus loss to LibDems and which has been won by Labour subsequently:
I like the comment "journalists should know better".
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
I have just (5 minutes ago) spoken with an aquaintance (we speak every now and then) who worked at the BBC. Now works for a national newspaper.
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
This is gobsmackingly bad.
There was a political advisor who wrote a blog about how we elect politicians because they have a certain skill in superficially skimming a subject and then appearing confident. Blair and Cameron were masters of this.
And that this works because the journalists don't know what they are reporting about and go for the simple gotcha. This makes controlling the news cycle Alistair Campbell style all to simple.
The name of the political wonk? Dominic Cummings...
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
The question for the House will be -
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.
Clumsy.
Quite a defensive question that given that the prior spending wasn't a cause of it at all, and that when Darling opened the taps in 2018 it was to keep the crisis from becoming a meltdown.
Probably right. But I wanted to roll the pitch. I think that's allowable.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997
I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’
Spending warm summer days indoors Writing frightening verse of a strange haired girl with a lack of mirth
I deduced who that was, without previously knowing.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings
Mike, how do you square the circle of Corbyn's apparent toxicity and his 40% of the electorate in 2017?
There are plenty of reasons why Labour did well in 2017, but just to focus on Corbyn:
A lot of people's "first impression" had been based on newspaper stories, not the man himself. For the 2017 election, he was tidied up, kept his temper in check, and was better than most expected. With May being much worse than expected, the comparison was in his favour too. His approval ratings even briefly went positive.
After that there wasn't really anywhere he could go. His backstory would keep coming up, and he couldn't keep up the statesman act for long. The Tories kept plugging away at his history, found some successful attacks and pounded away on social media with them (When I was canvassing, his opinions on Venezuela actually came up a few times!)
Another example is an interesting article not long after the 2019 election, looking at mining towns and wondering how on earth they went Tory. Brexit would be an issue, but they visited a pub, where the upstairs had walls adorned with Mining memorabilia, but downstairs it was all about the local army regiment. In the 1980s everyone there would have had a family member who mined, now these were the areas where young people went in to the armed forces. Corbyn's history of IRA support, and perceived anti-military stance were a huge sore point in many of these red wall areas.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997
I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’
Spending warm summer days indoors Writing frightening verse of a strange haired girl with a lack of mirth
This is pretty good. You have nothing to fear from my Class Test if you can knock that sort of thing out.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I'm sure she'll live with your disappointment.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Not all female politicians spend a lifetime hiding their obvious sexuality
Not everyone's obsessively weird enough to care about it.
Mate, we’re both indoors on a beautifully sunny day, endlessly posting on an obscure politics site where people are actively discussing the general election result in Torbay in 1997
I think we can safely say we PBers are all ‘obsessively weird’
Spending warm summer days indoors Writing frightening verse of a strange haired girl with a lack of mirth
I deduced who that was, without previously knowing.
ETA I thought the second couplet was very distinctive, turns out they are you. You are a master of pastiche.
I disagree with David's assumption that there will be a rise in cases ... And therefore all that follows from that.
Based on the evidence from other countries that have lifted lockdown before us plus the evidence that people are going to continue to socially distance then it seems quite probable that R will remain below 1.
If that happens we won't reach herd immunity. There will be a long tail (flattening the curve graphs had this at the start) as the number of cases and deaths logarithmically trends down.
There will be far more economic devastation from ongoing social distancing than there will be increases in deaths. But I can't see an alternative as people will continue to voluntarily socially distance whether we want them to or not.
The reality is people are educated now and will take matters into their own hands. As is quite appropriate. The reality is people are worried about death not just for themselves but their friends and families too. Ultimately I don't want my loved ones to die far more than any politicians don't want them to die: to me my loved ones are precious to politicians they're tragic statistics if they do.
Taking precautions is logical and doesn't need enforcement.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
The skyline has been transformed. Not always for the better, but it is much more dramatic.
Walk up Primrose Hill and look south and nearly all the major structures, forming the skyline, were erected in the last 20 years: the Shard, the Gherkin, 22 Bishopsgate, most of Canary Wharf, the Cheesegrater, London Eye, and more
A hypothesis:
That is a reason why older visitors to London now find the place disconcerting - its not the London of the Thames tv logo anymore:
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
Yes and Jubilee line too
Is the Jubilee line impressive ?
Now the DLR was certainly impressive when it started.
1997 was the last election I can remember when there were lots of party posters on lampposts, in people's windows, cars, etc. In 2001 people didn't bother and haven't since. (I was still at school at the time).
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
It's a bit wierd that someone would find this passive aggressive.
the weird thing is that bag of spanners Digby mentioning her hair, would he expect her to say " what a state that fat shoogly bachle Digby is, surely he has been hit by a bus rather than do it to himself by eating all the pies", what an ignoramus ant typical shallow Tory.
Not Portland again? As you say this is playing into Trump's hands.
I also fear a summer of rioting might help Trump. However, the market move in the last 24 hours is the opposite. We have CROSSOVER and Biden is now favourite.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
The skyline has been transformed. Not always for the better, but it is much more dramatic.
Walk up Primrose Hill and look south and nearly all the major structures, forming the skyline, were erected in the last 20 years: the Shard, the Gherkin, 22 Bishopsgate, most of Canary Wharf, the Cheesegrater, London Eye, and more
A hypothesis:
That is a reason why older visitors to London now find the place disconcerting - its not the London of the Thames tv logo anymore:
shit compared to late seventies and early eighties, it was brilliant in London then, I spent lots and lots of time there , stayed in Tara hotel in Kengsington and life was great.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
IMO London today is more shiny but less interesting than it was in the 1990s. The main difference is the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the transport system since then.
John Major's 'invincible green suburbs' aren't what they were but central London is certainly more impressive.
The skyline has been transformed. Not always for the better, but it is much more dramatic.
Walk up Primrose Hill and look south and nearly all the major structures, forming the skyline, were erected in the last 20 years: the Shard, the Gherkin, 22 Bishopsgate, most of Canary Wharf, the Cheesegrater, London Eye, and more
A hypothesis:
That is a reason why older visitors to London now find the place disconcerting - its not the London of the Thames tv logo anymore:
1997 was the last election I can remember when there were lots of party posters on lampposts, in people's windows, cars, etc. In 2001 people didn't bother and haven't since. (I was still at school at the time).
I remember driving through Hemsworth constituency in 2017.
There were huge numbers of party posters on lampposts - Conservative, Labour and, in Featherstone, LibDem.
I wondered if there was an agreement between the parties to put each other's posters up and to take them down afterwards.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Wait for tonight's leader approval ratings
Mike, how do you square the circle of Corbyn's apparent toxicity and his 40% of the electorate in 2017?
There are plenty of reasons why Labour did well in 2017, but just to focus on Corbyn:
A lot of people's "first impression" had been based on newspaper stories, not the man himself. For the 2017 election, he was tidied up, kept his temper in check, and was better than most expected. With May being much worse than expected, the comparison was in his favour too. His approval ratings even briefly went positive.
After that there wasn't really anywhere he could go. His backstory would keep coming up, and he couldn't keep up the statesman act for long. The Tories kept plugging away at his history, found some successful attacks and pounded away on social media with them (When I was canvassing, his opinions on Venezuela actually came up a few times!)
Another example is an interesting article not long after the 2019 election, looking at mining towns and wondering how on earth they went Tory. Brexit would be an issue, but they visited a pub, where the upstairs had walls adorned with Mining memorabilia, but downstairs it was all about the local army regiment. In the 1980s everyone there would have had a family member who mined, now these were the areas where young people went in to the armed forces. Corbyn's history of IRA support, and perceived anti-military stance were a huge sore point in many of these red wall areas.
Good post.
Starmer will do better by virtue of not being Corbyn. But he surely should be able to best Corbyn’s 40%.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
tim on here was always going on about Cameron's hair. His avatar was of a bald David Cameron. Ed Miliband was constantly judged by his appearance, as was Jeremy Corbyn. Farage is mocked for his teeth and clothes. So I dont think it's correct to say it's only female politicans that have this fuss made of their appearance, or that Digby Jones is obsessed by Nicola Sturgeon's. He has just made a comment about her.
In that Twitter debate about Sturgeon’s curiously perfect hairdo in a time of cholera, someone says that she is almost certainly wearing a wig
On reflection I think that’s right. Look at a dozen different photos of her and the hair never changes (plague or no plague). Even the occasional ruffled bits look the same.
It’s quite clever. The unchanging ‘haircut‘ adds to her general demeanour of steadfast calm.
IIRC there was film of her doing her hair in one of the newspaper stories someone posted. But either way, she's doing it well.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
Capable politician doesnt like being judged by her hair or legs shocker?
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
tim on here was always going on about Cameron's hair. His avatar was of a bald David Cameron. Ed Miliband was constantly judged by his appearance, as was Jeremy Corbyn. Farage is mocked for his teeth and clothes. So I dont think it's correct to say it's only female politicans that have this fuss made of their appearance, or that Digby Jones is obsessed by Nicola Sturgeon's. He has just made a comment about her.
In that Twitter debate about Sturgeon’s curiously perfect hairdo in a time of cholera, someone says that she is almost certainly wearing a wig
On reflection I think that’s right. Look at a dozen different photos of her and the hair never changes (plague or no plague). Even the occasional ruffled bits look the same.
It’s quite clever. The unchanging ‘haircut‘ adds to her general demeanour of steadfast calm.
Comments
The world is not perfect and the UK cannot change that. International law means very little and even less when the most powerful nations in the world including the US regularly ignore it.
To be part of changing that, the UK would need an alliance of many powerful countries, including the US. It is clear the US has no interests in such alliances, it prefers to use its power through America first and bilateral international relations rather than multilateral.
This is not the cold war with two giant blocs, its every country for itself, which leaves medium sized countries best on the sidelines until progress can be made with fresh leadership in the most powerful nations.
They would have gone with their original plan - march in, arrest everyone in the existing civil institutions and replace them, full Chinese mainland law.
The deal that Patten talked them into was good for China and Hong Kong. The Chinese are now tearing up that deal. If we do nothing, then that will be noted on the value of our agreements going forward.
On 7 May 2012 the University of Cambridge granted my Irish great-uncle, a 31 year-old doctor, a certificate stating that he had proved himself by -
“his KNOWLEDGE and SKILL in SANITARY SCIENCE, to wit in Chemistry and Physics in the causes and prevention of Epidemic and Infectious Diseases and in the means of remedying or ameliorating those Circumstances and Conditions of life which are know to be injurious to health as well as in the Laws of the Realm relating to Public Health is CERTIFIED to be well qualified in respect of Knowledge and Skill aforesaid to fulfil the Duties of a Medical Officer of Health.”
On 8 September 1915, having joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, he died of his wounds. Septicaemia, ironically enough. His family did not realise how ill he was.
Epidemic and Infectious Diseases are always with us. And always will be.
No-one talks much about our PMs dishevelled appearance (which is fine), why are the electorate so fussed about May shoes or Sturgeons hair or their legs?
Is it because he doesn't know them or is it because they've been falling during May and he doesn't want to mention it ?
We should also fall into line with the rest of the 5-Eyes countries and cut China out of 5G development in the UK. Also ban them from involvement in big infrastructure projects. There are many things we could do and there are ready made alliances that we are part of to allow us to do it if we choose.
Finally the 10% and then 0% band of corporation tax on very small companies that was so obviously pointless, had to be amended every year because of abuse, making it more and more complicated, did not encourage a single person to set up a business because the income level was so, so low and was scraped the year after the final change. Just pointless fiddling and messing up peoples lives (not least the fabled or possibly real plethora of milkmen who set up limited companies to exploit it for a few tens of pounds they then paid over to accountants for preparing what should have been the simplest of accounts).
She is writing a story on COVID19 - indeed she is apparently one of the "core" group on the paper on the subject.
She was not aware that the ONS is publishing comprehensive data. She was not aware that the NHS England data is detailed down to trust level. She was unaware that detailed data was being published for Scotland, Wales and NI.
All she had were wire service reports, and headlines from other papers.
I sent her my link list. including cricketwyvern.
WTFF?
Has Apsana Begum MP jumped onto a bandwagon?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-jenrick-resign-isle-of-dogs-development_uk_5ed005dac5b687804c80727
Today is the 50th day since the last time electricity was generated using coal in the UK.
At this moment, we have 16.3% generated from wind, 33.3% generated from Solar, and 0.75% from hydro.
However, two caveats:
1) Demand’s on the floor (apparently there’s some medical problem or other that has shut loads of factories);
2) The reason we have so much solar is because we have had the driest, warmest and sunniest May since a freak spring in 1896. If somebody wishes to convince me that the lack of particles in the air is not linked to this, I am eager to be persuaded but you may find it uphill work.
Every party leader who took their party into power and won the next general election and led on approval ratings also saw their party lead on voting intention too.
Including Thatcher in 1979
That's enough of the dueling banjos ... Ed
But I remain the punmeister of PB as well.
Tynemouth
Leeds NE
Batley
Wirral S
Crosby / Sefton C
Birmingham Edgbaston
Birmingham Hall Green
Southampton Test
Harrow W
Brent N
Ealing N
Hayes
Westminster N
Eltham
Mitcham
and Labour gains in 1997 which were Labour in 2019 albeit with some loss in between:
Leeds NW
Sheffield Hallam
Lancaster
Chester
Wirral W
Hove
Brighton Kemptown
Enfield N
Enfield Southgate
Ealing Acton
Brentford
Ilford N
Putney
Battersea
Croydon C
Cardiff N
Bristol W
I'm sure I've missed some.
Off-hand the only one I can think of is Westmorland and Lonsdale. Are there any others?
Edit - Canterbury as well, of course.
Tbh I can't think of better words to describe the endless 24/7 discussion and speculation about her appearance, sexuality, domestic arrangements, clothing budget, reading habits, price of her coffee maker etc, etc, followed by copious amounts of aggressive abuse that is anything but passive This is pretty much what all high profile women pols get, and 'weird' and 'obsessive' is the least of it.
Just so long as you're not now trying to back out. Because that would be poor form.
See Glasto.
I thought they started really well in 1997 by announcing at the beginning the independence of the Bank of England and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The Tories should be really ashamed they did not do the latter. I hope my memory is correct on those events.
To be clear - she is doing the background that will get written up under others names. Story research, I suppose.
It is telling that she is at struggles-with-excel-sum-formula level of data science.
Well, I have to go and do something I haven’t done in two months. It’s important. It’s amazing. It’s gonna to be tough, but it’s gonna be worth it.
I’m going to go and get some more diesel now I am driving the car more often.
Have a good afternoon.
People simply wouldn't react like that I maintained. Hollywood bollocks.
Looks like they had a profound understanding of what really constitutes American Exceptionalism.
I think they are probably right, but even if they are not, knowing that that is their view, I am not surprised if they make a comment about it now and again.
It's been interesting to see how TV shows have reinvented themselves for social distancing but socially distanced Sesame Street has to be one of the funniest things I've seen. Not watching it myself but keep hearing giggles of laughter from the kids as they watch Elmo having Zoom style conversations with Cookie Monster and other friends.
I genuinely can't remember a better run of beautifully clement weather in my life.
David Cameron: fire up the Quattro!
Boris Johnson: fire up the barbie!
I'm here for the historical references, book talk and puerile shite, mind.
Writing frightening verse
of a strange haired girl
with a lack of mirth
Struggling with auto-sum in Excel is the level of throwing one of those kids gliders, made out of a couple of pieces of polystyrene, in the park. And hitting the ground with it.
But one more for the debits - his scheming to become PM became a problem.
My overall view is underrated PM overrated Chancellor.
Tynemouth
Leeds NE
Batley
Wirral S
Crosby / Sefton C
Birmingham Edgbaston
Birmingham Hall Green
Southampton Test
Harrow W
Brent N
Ealing N
Hayes
Westminster N
Eltham
Mitcham
Plus to the SNP
Edinburgh Pentlands / SW
Perth
Plus losses to Labour and which have been won by the LibDems also subsequently:
Leeds NW
Bristol W
Plus loss to Labour which has been won by Green subsequently:
Brighton Pavillion
Plus loss to LibDems and which has been won by Labour subsequently:
Sheffield Hallam
And that this works because the journalists don't know what they are reporting about and go for the simple gotcha. This makes controlling the news cycle Alistair Campbell style all to simple.
The name of the political wonk? Dominic Cummings...
A lot of people's "first impression" had been based on newspaper stories, not the man himself. For the 2017 election, he was tidied up, kept his temper in check, and was better than most expected. With May being much worse than expected, the comparison was in his favour too. His approval ratings even briefly went positive.
After that there wasn't really anywhere he could go. His backstory would keep coming up, and he couldn't keep up the statesman act for long. The Tories kept plugging away at his history, found some successful attacks and pounded away on social media with them (When I was canvassing, his opinions on Venezuela actually came up a few times!)
Another example is an interesting article not long after the 2019 election, looking at mining towns and wondering how on earth they went Tory. Brexit would be an issue, but they visited a pub, where the upstairs had walls adorned with Mining memorabilia, but downstairs it was all about the local army regiment. In the 1980s everyone there would have had a family member who mined, now these were the areas where young people went in to the armed forces. Corbyn's history of IRA support, and perceived anti-military stance were a huge sore point in many of these red wall areas.
That is a reason why older visitors to London now find the place disconcerting - its not the London of the Thames tv logo anymore:
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB836GB836&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=thames+tv+logo&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc35j8ztvpAhWlmFwKHdQ8DG8QsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1536&bih=754#imgrc=4jfLnll0N09GkM
Now the DLR was certainly impressive when it started.
https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/1266636102825279490
First and last time Tatton did not elect a Tory MP. George Osborne regained it in 2001
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1266401535174434816?s=20
Now central London is a metropolis from the Shard to Canary Wharf to the Gerkhin and Remain central to Brexit voting pensioners
There were huge numbers of party posters on lampposts - Conservative, Labour and, in Featherstone, LibDem.
I wondered if there was an agreement between the parties to put each other's posters up and to take them down afterwards.
Starmer will do better by virtue of not being Corbyn. But he surely should be able to best Corbyn’s 40%.