Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
What's your plan for putting Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and pre-partition India back together then?
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some principles that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Of course it is daft. But it has evolved into something benign, and it works. Is there is a better system on offer?
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Tatchell isn't quite correct though, if WIlliam had married Megan Markle; or Harry was the older brother the issue would be the heir to the throne irrespective of skin colour. SImiliarly if George takes a black or asian wife.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
99.999999% of people are excluded from being head of state in the foreseeable future, the vast majority of them white. That's a feature of monarchy, not a bug.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
There are 2 issues here: how easy or not it is to get British citizenship and, separately, the source of the wealth used for the donations. Not all the wealth from these ex-Russians is clean.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Off topic, but I’m currently experiencing the frustrations of job seeking. I did two full days of work for a law firm as part of the recruitment process, but unfortunately did not progress. That’s fine, but I have been given zero feedback, despite asking for it.
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
Stick at it.
I was turned down after a vac scheme for being too quiet and two days latter for being too loud (the latter being much closer to the Truth).
While this is Johnson's usual execrable nonsense; do not underestimate its potency. He is telling the English a story about themselves that they very much like.
When visiting Scotland, a prime minister should be telling the Scots a story about themselves that they very much like.
Johnson is addressing the wrong audience in the wrong country.
When 98.3% of his MPs come from outside that country, it looks like he's addressing precisely the correct audience...
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
There are 2 issues here: how easy or not it is to get British citizenship and, separately, the source of the wealth used for the donations. Not all the wealth from these ex-Russians is clean.
Shouldn't the working hypothesis be that none of it is clean?
Stephen Buch of the Staggers has an interesting take on Mr Johnson's progress around Scotland in his daily email briefing, comparing Mr Cameron in 2014 to Mr J today:
"You can argue that the Vow didn't live up to its billing, or that David Cameron gave away too much on the back of a single YouGov poll. But the significant thing was that he responded to a political problem with a serious, policy-based answer. What's the serious answer to Scottish discontent with the Union as it operates? How is Boris Johnson's governing philosophy, such as it is, changing to meet the challenge of combating Scottish independence?
And without some kind of answer to that question, it's hard to see how Johnson's government will be able to repeat Cameron's trick of turning back the swing to Yes."
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
Are you calling the BBC a Unionist institution? I thought that line normally came from our SNPers.
"The BBC should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In commissioning and delivering output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development."
-- from the Beeb's miussion statement - and note that 'invest' also.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
There are 2 issues here: how easy or not it is to get British citizenship and, separately, the source of the wealth used for the donations. Not all the wealth from these ex-Russians is clean.
Shouldn't the working hypothesis be that none of it is clean?
Yes. And that no-one with any sense should go anywhere near anyone with links to Putin. But when money is dangled common-sense flies out the window.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
The Tories? Surely Mr Thompson thinks that.
Edit: my apologies ot Mr T for including the UK in Europe. But they are a British nationalist party by any standard.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
With respect: it absolutely astounds me that a serious PBer could assert that Scotland has one-party politics. It has had a coalition or minority government in Holyrood ever since the reconvention of the Parliament in 1997, with the exception of one term (5 years IIRC). Indeed Labour and the LDs designed the unique modified d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim (the occasional majority government being unplanned).
While admitting I am no expert on this, I thought Salmond’s government from 2007 to 2011 was a minority government with what amounted to tacit confidence and supply from other parties, and that Sturgeon has the support of the Greens but is not in formal coalition?
Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
I was thinking of Labour and the LDs as being in formal coalition - much more so than the SNP has been since. But I may be wrong there as I wasn't so interested in politics then.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
There was! It was just for the wrong epidemic.
Not a 'once in 100 yr pandemic'. Conveniently labelled as such by clueless politicians.
In a 2017-18 flu epidemic, the NHS briefly couldn't cope. Excess deaths were 50,000. No-one was locked up, there was no self-inflicted economic crisis.
If we want to reduce these events, take vitamin D early autumn to spring. There may never be a vaccine ... it's the same with HIV or SARS COV 1.
Watch interviews with doctors from Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford.
One of them my age points out that he's lived through four 'seasonal events' of this kind; they were 1957, 1968 and 2009. 'Pandemics', he points out, tend to kill lots of young people. Hardly any children have died from COVID-19 and there have been no excess deaths among the under-50s.
Also apparently we used to have 'fever hospitals'. They were scrapped in the 1980s and 1990s.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
I thought that was sorted out a few years ago. Only recently, I grant you.
It is a valid point. Citizens should not be discriminated on the basis of their origin or their ancestors origin.
The solution to the problem is limiting the size of the donation so that it can't be argued to be a bribe or requiring a favour.
This probably needs a number put against it and a valuation method for gifts, although when I first started work we were told common sense applied given the example of a distillery giving you a bottle of whiskey was fine but a car manufacturer giving you a car was a bribe.
They should not be discriminated against because of their origin or ancestry.
Should they be discriminated against for their own or their immediate families close and direct links to a hostile foreign head of state? Yes, clearly, stricter limits and controls must apply.
I don't think I agree because you are now in the realms of deciding who is and is not a valid person. Big brother stuff. For instance we do not disallow communists, fascist or idiots from voting..
If they qualify under citizenship rules then they qualify.
However if donations are limited to a low maximum amount it then doesn't matter.They then have no more influence than anyone else in society.
There are 2 issues here: how easy or not it is to get British citizenship and, separately, the source of the wealth used for the donations. Not all the wealth from these ex-Russians is clean.
Shouldn't the working hypothesis be that none of it is clean?
Yes. And that no-one with any sense should go anywhere near anyone with links to Putin. But when money is dangled common-sense flies out the window.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
I thought that was sorted out a few years ago. Only recently, I grant you.
No, that was only the prohibition on marrying a catholic. It still exists for the monarch because they are head of the CoE.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Tatchell isn't quite correct though, if WIlliam had married Megan Markle; or Harry was the older brother the issue would be the heir to the throne irrespective of skin colour. SImiliarly if George takes a black or asian wife.
You are of course correct and I rarely with Tatchell, but I can see how he made the connection.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
Wasn't that abolished when we abolished male-preference primogeniture a few years ago?
(I have to acknowledge I only know the word primogeniture due to playing Crusader Kings II)
Though even then, who's sure you can't catch it again?
I'm afraid my brother has tested positive for the third time since the end of March.
He has a weakened immune system after undergoing treatment for cancer and the medical view is this is preventing him getting rid of the virus.
He has another 14 days of isolation with which to contend - I can only hope one of the many vaccines will be administered to him as a priority as he is effectively trapped. His condition is not serious, he has never needed ventilation or even gone to hospital.
You have my empathy.
I had a serious diagnosis about 8 weeks ago, and am now doing a course of treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies - which has meant weekly hospital visits. All on top of existing Type I Diabetes.
Excellent treatment by the local hospital, but not fun.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
I thought that was sorted out a few years ago. Only recently, I grant you.
Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is arguably residual discrimination because the monarch him/herself can't be catholic, being head of the C o E, but then that also prevents the monarch from being methodist, muslim or whatever.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Of course it is daft. But it has evolved into something benign, and it works. Is there is a better system on offer?
Yes. An elected President with ceremonial powers. The bad thing about monarchy is that it cements in place the system of social class that so bedevils the UK with privilege based on ancestry.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
I thought that was sorted out a few years ago. Only recently, I grant you.
Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is arguably residual discrimination because the monarch him/herself can't be catholic, being head of the C o E, but then that also prevents the monarch from being methodist, muslim or whatever.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Blame? I think the economic response has been excellent.
Yes, "lessons learned" is always about what went wrong but it would also be good to learn lessons from how a government with an epic history of IT failures apparently managed to get the systems working for the furlough scheme in about 25 minutes.
PS Is everyone over there still doing the weekly Clap For HMRC?
The fact that the Furlough website is so easy to use and works so perfectly despite the pressures that it has been under with massive demand is an incredible achievement. I did not think it had any chance.
Thats why the "astonishing failure " quote today is just so silly. Who else in the Country thinks the economic response has been an astonishing failure?
While this is Johnson's usual execrable nonsense; do not underestimate its potency. He is telling the English a story about themselves that they very much like.
When visiting Scotland, a prime minister should be telling the Scots a story about themselves that they very much like.
Johnson is addressing the wrong audience in the wrong country.
When 98.3% of his MPs come from outside that country, it looks like he's addressing precisely the correct audience...
And folk wonder why we want out.
I never knew Sweden was part of the United Kingdom.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
There was! It was just for the wrong epidemic.
Not a 'once in 100 yr pandemic'. Conveniently labelled as such by clueless politicians.
In a 2017-18 flu epidemic, the NHS briefly couldn't cope. Excess deaths were 50,000. No-one was locked up, there was no self-inflicted economic crisis.
If we want to reduce these events, take vitamin D early autumn to spring. There may never be a vaccine ... it's the same with HIV or SARS COV 1.
Watch interviews with doctors from Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford.
One of them my age points out that he's lived through four 'seasonal events' of this kind; they were 1957, 1968 and 2009. 'Pandemics', he points out, tend to kill lots of young people. Hardly any children have died from COVID-19 and there have been no excess deaths among the under-50s.
Also apparently we used to have 'fever hospitals'. They were scrapped in the 1980s and 1990s.
I was saying this stuff back in March, the 1999/2000 winter flu season was also a very very bad one.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
His tweet is a little confusing. I initially read it as saying that he is retweeting because of advice from the current leadership.
However, it looks like he may be claiming his previous criticism of Panorama was because of what he was told by the Corbyn team, and he's now recanting. Wonder if that was part of the court deal, or if he's been warned he may still be taken to court separately?
Lansman is saying his previous Tweets were based on information that he had been provided by the people who were then running the Labour party. His very grudging apology is a recognition that the information was incorrect. In other words, he has listened very carefully to the legal advice. Thus, the Tweet drives a coach and horses through the statement Corbyn made yesterday. Lansman, of course, is far smarter than Corbyn, as is John McDonnell, whose silence on this issue becomes more notable by the day.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
I think there is more to Nationalism than being proto Fascist.
The essence of Nationalism is the "othering" of some people as nationals, and others not, defined by geography or ethnicity or both.
Fascism requires a militarised state and corporatisation of the economy, with an alignment of workers and owners to the state.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
Don't be ridiculous, though I get that is your go to line.
Throughout this whole COVID process many people here have been heaping praise upon the New Zealand government which is openly nationalist.
Do you consider the New Zealand government a terrible, "divisive" government?
Blame? I think the economic response has been excellent.
Yes, "lessons learned" is always about what went wrong but it would also be good to learn lessons from how a government with an epic history of IT failures apparently managed to get the systems working for the furlough scheme in about 25 minutes.
PS Is everyone over there still doing the weekly Clap For HMRC?
The fact that the Furlough website is so easy to use and works so perfectly despite the pressures that it has been under with massive demand is an incredible achievement. I did not think it had any chance.
Thats why the "astonishing failure " quote today is just so silly. Who else in the Country thinks the economic response has been an astonishing failure?
That's easy - the specification was we need it to do XYZ and Cap Gem and co where then left to get on with it with the ability to pull in whatever resources they need.
Usual Government IT projects will start with a requirement list of XYZ and then the detail is added by which point XYZ is now XYZ if ABC occurs otherwise DQW unless R because of S in which case YED
Project die due to complexity and integrations so it's best to avoid it -but I will point out that one thing HMRC does have is a great Datawarehouse nowadays.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
I thought that was sorted out a few years ago. Only recently, I grant you.
For the purposes of succession the ban on Catholics still remains. The 2013 Act did not repeal those. Catholics are still officially termed as being "naturally dead and deemed to be dead" in terms of succession.
If the Head of State is the Supreme Governor of the CoE it makes sense for the former to be an Anglican. Or you could have disestablishment.
Don’t much care either way. But it is funny seeing anti-discrimination zealots seeing discrimination where none exists and ignoring one of the oldest forms of discrimination there has institutionally been in this country - and all this is in the monarchy, which embodies one of the daftest principles around.
To be clear I think HMQ does a good job and would not change the situation. There are far more important issues to be bothered about in Britain than the monarchy.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Yes.
How? Does Stormont not get a vote?
Every four years, they will be instructed to vote on the ongoing arrangements. These arrangements are intended to be permanent. If they are meeting, enormous pressure will be placed on Stormont to maintain them whether they like it or not (newsflash - the DUP do not) because any other course of action abrogates the Good Friday Agreement and effectively would vote themselves out of existence. Paradoxically, as Stormont also does not meet regularly, there is no guarantee that they will be able to vote on it. In the meanwhile, they are subjected to customs checks on trade with the British mainland.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
Off topic, but I’m currently experiencing the frustrations of job seeking. I did two full days of work for a law firm as part of the recruitment process, but unfortunately did not progress. That’s fine, but I have been given zero feedback, despite asking for it.
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
Stick at it.
I was turned down after a vac scheme for being too quiet and two days latter for being too loud (the latter being much closer to the Truth).
Thank you, I will do. At least you got some kind of reason though!
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
When people keep comparing epidemics that ran their course without restrictions being imposed to this pandemic’s outcome after stringent restrictions were imposed it does feel... well, here’s an analogy:
Since March, I’ve lost one-and-a-quarter stone by controlling my diet and following a fitness programme. My denial of all the extra yummy food and relaxation time I could have had was obviously pointless, though, seeing as I lost that weight, anyway... I could have eaten so much more and spent so much time with my feet up, couldn’t I?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
If you are thinking of Arthur Donaldson, he was a neutralist - and releaded without charge when someone misinformed against him. Consider rather the cast of the Unionist (aka Tory, and therefore British nationalist) MP Captain Ramsay, who got banged up for almost all the war. As Wiki says, whyen he was let out late in 1944, "He immediately returned to Westminster to resume his seat in the Commons, causing at least one member to walk out of the chamber. His only significant action in the remainder of the parliament was a motion calling for the reinstatement of the 1275 Statute of the Jewry passed under King Edward I."
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Yes.
How? Does Stormont not get a vote?
Every four years, they will be instructed to vote on the ongoing arrangements. These arrangements are intended to be permanent. If they are meeting, enormous pressure will be placed on Stormont to maintain them whether they like it or not (newsflash - the DUP do not) because any other course of action abrogates the Good Friday Agreement and effectively would vote themselves out of existence. Paradoxically, as Stormont also does not meet regularly, there is no guarantee that they will be able to vote on it. In the meanwhile, they are subjected to customs checks on trade with the British mainland.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
So yes. I am comfortable saying Johnson lied.
Spoilsport.
It is a mildly amusing distraction to explain without explaining to Philip the situation in Ireland as he fundamentally misunderstands what has been going on there and with Boris.
Now if he has any sense he will print out your post and refer to it in future conversations which will spoil our fun.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Yes.
How? Does Stormont not get a vote?
Every four years, they will be instructed to vote on the ongoing arrangements. These arrangements are intended to be permanent. If they are meeting, enormous pressure will be placed on Stormont to maintain them whether they like it or not (newsflash - the DUP do not) because any other course of action abrogates the Good Friday Agreement and effectively would vote themselves out of existence. Paradoxically, as Stormont also does not meet regularly, there is no guarantee that they will be able to vote on it. In the meanwhile, they are subjected to customs checks on trade with the British mainland.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
So yes. I am comfortable saying Johnson lied.
Breaking it down into parts.
* Every four years there is a vote is perfectly reasonable to have a time interval, that's like having elections after 4 or 5 years. I said a one-off vote is not OK because it is permanent and irreversible, but every 4 years is not.
* "Enormous pressure" . . . so what? Politicians are under all forms of pressures every time they vote anyway. There was enormous pressure not to vote for Brexit but we did.
Take away the pressure and time intervals, which all democracies face and have always faced, the simple truth remains that it is up to Stormont. If Stormont chooses to ignore the pressure and end the arrangements then that is their choice. If Stormont chooses to give in to pressure and continue the arrangements then that is their choice. The voters get to choose what kind of people go to Stormont. It is purely democratic.
Under the far inferior previous proposal the UK-wide backstop may have been intended as temporary but was in fact permanent until a new arrangement was reached. There was no time lapse and there was no unilateral exit regardless of how Stormont or Westminster voted.
So what lie? The principle was always agreed that Stormont could agree to differing arrangements with Britain . . . it was the lack of Stormont being involved that was the issue under May.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Vatican City?
Denmark too.
Japan surely?
Shintoism isn't a religion in the sense we would understand it in the West.
Interesting thought, thabnk you. It's actually rather tempting to say that the C of E has precisely that in common with Shintoism, at least in its subservience to the hierarchy of the English State.
But maybe that's a Scot speaking from the perspoective of the battlefield of centuries against Stuart Erastianism.
Fun fact - on July 2nd the bottom 5 in the Championship were Luton, Barnsley, Stoke, Huddersfield, and Middlesbrough. On July 22 none of these were relegated.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
What's your plan for putting Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and pre-partition India back together then?
Exactly that previous comment was absolute bollox,
Lansman is saying his previous Tweets were based on information that he had been provided by the people who were then running the Labour party. His very grudging apology is a recognition that the information was incorrect. In other words, he has listened very carefully to the legal advice. Thus, the Tweet drives a coach and horses through the statement Corbyn made yesterday. Lansman, of course, is far smarter than Corbyn, as is John McDonnell, whose silence on this issue becomes more notable by the day.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Yes.
How? Does Stormont not get a vote?
Every four years, they will be instructed to vote on the ongoing arrangements. These arrangements are intended to be permanent. If they are meeting, enormous pressure will be placed on Stormont to maintain them whether they like it or not (newsflash - the DUP do not) because any other course of action abrogates the Good Friday Agreement and effectively would vote themselves out of existence. Paradoxically, as Stormont also does not meet regularly, there is no guarantee that they will be able to vote on it. In the meanwhile, they are subjected to customs checks on trade with the British mainland.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
So yes. I am comfortable saying Johnson lied.
Breaking it down into parts.
* Every four years there is a vote is perfectly reasonable to have a time interval, that's like having elections after 4 or 5 years. I said a one-off vote is not OK because it is permanent and irreversible, but every 4 years is not.
* "Enormous pressure" . . . so what? Politicians are under all forms of pressures every time they vote anyway. There was enormous pressure not to vote for Brexit but we did.
Take away the pressure and time intervals, which all democracies face and have always faced, the simple truth remains that it is up to Stormont. If Stormont chooses to ignore the pressure and end the arrangements then that is their choice. If Stormont chooses to give in to pressure and continue the arrangements then that is their choice. The voters get to choose what kind of people go to Stormont. It is purely democratic.
Under the far inferior previous proposal the UK-wide backstop may have been intended as temporary but was in fact permanent until a new arrangement was reached. There was no time lapse and there was no unilateral exit regardless of how Stormont or Westminster voted.
So what lie? The principle was always agreed that Stormont could agree to differing arrangements with Britain . . . it was the lack of Stormont being involved that was the issue under May.
Stormont would always have had the ability to end the backstop, whether that was formally written into the WA or not. A border poll would have settled it.
Johnson resigned in protest at the idea of the EU having control over part of the UK. He then negotiated an agreement that did exactly that.
So again - yes he lied. No, he did not resign on principle.
If there is one thing Boris Johnson has proved throughout his career as a journalist and politician it is that he has a deep, abiding and principled commitment to just one thing - himself.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
My point is that there should )perhaps could) have been a 'pandemic plan' on a shelf in a cupboard in Downing Street, or the Treasury and it included the furlough scheme. In any event, the PPE element hadn't been taken to heart.
There was! It was just for the wrong epidemic.
Not a 'once in 100 yr pandemic'. Conveniently labelled as such by clueless politicians.
In a 2017-18 flu epidemic, the NHS briefly couldn't cope. Excess deaths were 50,000. No-one was locked up, there was no self-inflicted economic crisis.
If we want to reduce these events, take vitamin D early autumn to spring. There may never be a vaccine ... it's the same with HIV or SARS COV 1.
Watch interviews with doctors from Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford.
One of them my age points out that he's lived through four 'seasonal events' of this kind; they were 1957, 1968 and 2009. 'Pandemics', he points out, tend to kill lots of young people. Hardly any children have died from COVID-19 and there have been no excess deaths among the under-50s.
Also apparently we used to have 'fever hospitals'. They were scrapped in the 1980s and 1990s.
I was saying this stuff back in March, the 1999/2000 winter flu season was also a very very bad one.
Yes indeed. For the weeks after the NHS in part of N. Italy couldn't cope, I was briefly worried, given my age (67). By April, I and others thought that something fishy was going on. Cockup or conspiracy? Time will tell.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I remember a curate announcing in his last sermon that he was leaving the Church of England, causing a bit of a stir, only to follow that with the explanation that he was moving to Edinburgh and so would be transferring to the Church of Scotland.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Funny how "another ex Tory" wants to tarnish Boris by associating him with Cameron and May . . .
The report attacks the Treasury for not having a plan despite "years" of this potentially being an issue, if you wish to attack Cameron and May (or Hammond and Osborne) for those years feel free but Boris and Sunak weren't in charge for those years.
I freely attacked May before, during and after her Premiership. But for an "ex Tory" I am left wondering which Tory leadership it was that you supported?
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary under May.
Admittedly he was a very bad one, but that was his fault as much as it was hers.
I must have missed the Treasury being under the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.
Also, did you forget that he resigned on principle in protest from May's government? Something Starmer never did.
Well, no. Starmer never served in May’s government so he would have found resigning from it quite difficult.
Starmer could have resigned from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet though, if he had some prminciples that clashed with Corbyn's principles . . .
Corbyn had principles?
On the subject of Johnson, I seem to remember he resigned on the basis that May’s plans would have left the EU with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
That makes it difficult in light of subsequent events to accuse him of resigning on principle. Indeed, even at the time there were suggestions the real reason he resigned was to ensure David Davis didn’t usurp his place as the leader of the Brexiteers in Parliament.
Why doesn't it?
Johnson changed May's plan so that Stormont not the EU had control over NI's future. Do you not see the difference?
No, because that's not what he's done. It's what he says he's done, which is not quite the same thing.
It is what he's done, unless you're saying he and the media lied.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Yes.
How? Does Stormont not get a vote?
Every four years, they will be instructed to vote on the ongoing arrangements. These arrangements are intended to be permanent. If they are meeting, enormous pressure will be placed on Stormont to maintain them whether they like it or not (newsflash - the DUP do not) because any other course of action abrogates the Good Friday Agreement and effectively would vote themselves out of existence. Paradoxically, as Stormont also does not meet regularly, there is no guarantee that they will be able to vote on it. In the meanwhile, they are subjected to customs checks on trade with the British mainland.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
So yes. I am comfortable saying Johnson lied.
Breaking it down into parts.
* Every four years there is a vote is perfectly reasonable to have a time interval, that's like having elections after 4 or 5 years. I said a one-off vote is not OK because it is permanent and irreversible, but every 4 years is not.
* "Enormous pressure" . . . so what? Politicians are under all forms of pressures every time they vote anyway. There was enormous pressure not to vote for Brexit but we did.
Take away the pressure and time intervals, which all democracies face and have always faced, the simple truth remains that it is up to Stormont. If Stormont chooses to ignore the pressure and end the arrangements then that is their choice. If Stormont chooses to give in to pressure and continue the arrangements then that is their choice. The voters get to choose what kind of people go to Stormont. It is purely democratic.
Under the far inferior previous proposal the UK-wide backstop may have been intended as temporary but was in fact permanent until a new arrangement was reached. There was no time lapse and there was no unilateral exit regardless of how Stormont or Westminster voted.
So what lie? The principle was always agreed that Stormont could agree to differing arrangements with Britain . . . it was the lack of Stormont being involved that was the issue under May.
Stormont would always have had the ability to end the backstop, whether that was formally written into the WA or not. A border poll would have settled it.
Johnson resigned in protest at the idea of the EU having control over part of the UK. He then negotiated an agreement that did exactly that.
So again - yes he lied. No, he did not resign on principle.
If there is one thing Boris Johnson has proved throughout his career as a journalist and politician it is that he has a deep, abiding and principled commitment to just one thing - himself.
The EU don't have control over a part of the UK. Stormont have control that they can then defer to the EU. That is Stormont's choice. It isn't for Boris to tell Stormont what to do.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Presbyterians fought wars over the idea that the Monarch was head of the Church. The C of S has in any case been disestablished since (I think) 1923, but it is sort of semi-hemi-demi-official-approved in that the Queen is formally C oS when north of the border (attends the local kirk on Sunday when at Balmoral). HM does send an 'observer' to the annual General Asembly - formally titled the Lord High Commissioner - on at least one occasion this was the Princess Royal.
While this is Johnson's usual execrable nonsense; do not underestimate its potency. He is telling the English a story about themselves that they very much like.
When visiting Scotland, a prime minister should be telling the Scots a story about themselves that they very much like.
Johnson is addressing the wrong audience in the wrong country.
When 98.3% of his MPs come from outside that country, it looks like he's addressing precisely the correct audience...
And folk wonder why we want out.
Shows how the thick Tories think, not even the guile to hide their nastiness.
Stephen Buch of the Staggers has an interesting take on Mr Johnson's progress around Scotland in his daily email briefing, comparing Mr Cameron in 2014 to Mr J today:
"You can argue that the Vow didn't live up to its billing, or that David Cameron gave away too much on the back of a single YouGov poll. But the significant thing was that he responded to a political problem with a serious, policy-based answer. What's the serious answer to Scottish discontent with the Union as it operates? How is Boris Johnson's governing philosophy, such as it is, changing to meet the challenge of combating Scottish independence?
And without some kind of answer to that question, it's hard to see how Johnson's government will be able to repeat Cameron's trick of turning back the swing to Yes."
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
Isn't there a schoolboy error which says that a Stuart wife was Catherine of Buganda?
The older I get, the dafter Monarchy seems to me. It is nothing other than institutionalised privilege, so taking that extra step as Tatchell has done is not exactly a stretch...
Except bringing race into it gives the impression that that's what tips the balance for him, which seems an odd place to be.
He misses the legalised discrimination which does exist in the monarchy - namely against Catholics. Perhaps complaining about that is not fashionable enough for him.
Wasn't that abolished when we abolished male-preference primogeniture a few years ago?
(I have to acknowledge I only know the word primogeniture due to playing Crusader Kings II)
Are you calling the BBC a Unionist institution? I thought that line normally came from our SNPers.
"The BBC should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In commissioning and delivering output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development."
-- from the Beeb's miussion statement - and note that 'invest' also.
It is unionist to the core and just a state propaganda unit
@ydoethur as @TOPPING regularly says (and I've never disagreed) the UK was "always sovereign" within the EU as we chose to be in the EU and we could choose to leave. We couldn't exercise that sovereignty without leaving, but we were sovereign.
The people of Northern Ireland weren't sovereign in the backstop as they'd be subject to rules they had no unilateral exit from. The people of Northern Ireland are sovereign under Boris's deal as they'd be subject to rules only with their ongoing consent and they can choose to leave.
Unless Topping you wish to take back the 'always sovereign' remark then that is a major change between Boris's deal and May's.
Labour is a busted flush in Scotland and the Conservatives not much better, but unionism is far from a dead duck and Johnson's purpose must be to bolster it against the SNP's one-track agenda.
Scotland still has one party politics, it's just that it has swapped out Labour for the SNP. Both have been bad news for Scotland. It wasn't supposed to be possible to have such dominance post-devolution - but chalk that one up to Blair as well!
With respect: it absolutely astounds me that a serious PBer could assert that Scotland has one-party politics. It has had a coalition or minority government in Holyrood ever since the reconvention of the Parliament in 1997, with the exception of one term (5 years IIRC). Indeed Labour and the LDs designed the unique modified d'Hondt system to achieve precisely that aim (the occasional majority government being unplanned).
While admitting I am no expert on this, I thought Salmond’s government from 2007 to 2011 was a minority government with what amounted to tacit confidence and supply from other parties, and that Sturgeon has the support of the Greens but is not in formal coalition?
Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
I was thinking of Labour and the LDs as being in formal coalition - much more so than the SNP has been since. But I may be wrong there as I wasn't so interested in politics then.
SNP have never been in coalition, they were minority government first time round.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
More patent lies from an absolute bellend gold plated liar. Back to your village , they are looking for their idiot.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
I'm not nationalist in anyway, but I would expect the flag to behind a podium and can see the flag on the plane is worthwhile (subject to cost) because the people in front of them or flying in them are representing the country.
I find I do have a hypocritical view sometimes however and wonder if this is due to the thug element using the union jack as I am not comfortable seeing it flown all over the place yet when I visit France or Italy I am quite impressed by the massive national and EU flags flown everywhere and that is not rational.
Nationalism belongs on the sports field nowhere else, it’s destructive, corrosive and destroys.
That tends to me my view.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
Philip Thompson, unsurprisingly, confuses nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is essentially divisive, based on hate of others and is historically damaging to all nations that become obsessed with it. It is a confused psychological mixture of outward boasts of superiority that are designed to cover up chippy insecurity and sense of grievance. Flying a flag is not nationalistic, though it can be if flown by a nationalist. Nationalism is closely allied to Fascism, and Scottish Nationalism in particular has a bad rep historically on this, though they desperately try to cover it up. UKIP and the Brexit Party are fundamentally 21st century fascist parties, and it is why people like Philip desperately try to claim that nationalism is not a bad thing.
If you are thinking of Arthur Donaldson, he was a neutralist - and releaded without charge when someone misinformed against him. Consider rather the cast of the Unionist (aka Tory, and therefore British nationalist) MP Captain Ramsay, who got banged up for almost all the war. As Wiki says, whyen he was let out late in 1944, "He immediately returned to Westminster to resume his seat in the Commons, causing at least one member to walk out of the chamber. His only significant action in the remainder of the parliament was a motion calling for the reinstatement of the 1275 Statute of the Jewry passed under King Edward I."
Carnyx, the halfwitted moron does not think, he just hates Scotland and posts absolute crap. Easily the nastiest and worst poster on the site by a country mile.
Off topic, but I’m currently experiencing the frustrations of job seeking. I did two full days of work for a law firm as part of the recruitment process, but unfortunately did not progress. That’s fine, but I have been given zero feedback, despite asking for it.
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
All too common.
I used to work in the voluntary sector, so recruitment had to follow strict policies, and I always encouraged feedback. On a few occasions I'd have loved to pass on info about really daft things people did, but they tended not to ask!
We did have one IT project, where the people applying were mostly from the private sector. We'd normally get a few dozen applications for a job as you have to put in quite a lot of effort with the forms, but this time we had over 400. I wrote to everyone and explaining exactly how many we'd had and why a lot of good candidates might not even get an interview.
Quite a few people replied to thank me as they rarely got any feedback at all, and one in particular wrote a lovely note. She'd been in London for a while and was well qualified, but was getting nowhere with applying for better jobs. She said she had no idea competition was so high, and following my email, started looking in other cities, and got a really good job straight away.
The takeaway I'd say for you, is that competition is fierce, and most of the time progressing will depend on who else applies. Asking for feedback is really important, but even then, I've seen a lot of people try to come up with "reasons" when it's often somebody much more qualified, or who they know that got appointed.
Finally, did you call for feedback, or just email? Calling may be more likely to get a response, as it's a quick 2 mins - but I wouldn't hold your breath. It may be more about persistence, and sadly in your field, making the right contacts.
Comments
I was turned down after a vac scheme for being too quiet and two days latter for being too loud (the latter being much closer to the Truth).
"You can argue that the Vow didn't live up to its billing, or that David Cameron gave away too much on the back of a single YouGov poll. But the significant thing was that he responded to a political problem with a serious, policy-based answer. What's the serious answer to Scottish discontent with the Union as it operates? How is Boris Johnson's governing philosophy, such as it is, changing to meet the challenge of combating Scottish independence?
And without some kind of answer to that question, it's hard to see how Johnson's government will be able to repeat Cameron's trick of turning back the swing to Yes."
-- from the Beeb's miussion statement - and note that 'invest' also.
UK:
The Conservative Party
The Scottish National Party
Plaid Cymru
USA:
The Democrats
Australia:
The Liberals
The Nationals
The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand
Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
Edit: my apologies ot Mr T for including the UK in Europe. But they are a British nationalist party by any standard.
I have even been known to support the opponent occasionally for instance the underdog, or if England/Britain are using gamesmanship or dubious or boring tactics.
(I can get some sleep now 😆)
In a 2017-18 flu epidemic, the NHS briefly couldn't cope. Excess deaths were 50,000. No-one was locked up, there was no self-inflicted economic crisis.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/30/winter-deaths-hit-highest-level-40-years-experts-blame-ineffective/
If we want to reduce these events, take vitamin D early autumn to spring. There may never be a vaccine ... it's the same with HIV or SARS COV 1.
Watch interviews with doctors from Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford.
One of them my age points out that he's lived through four 'seasonal events' of this kind; they were 1957, 1968 and 2009. 'Pandemics', he points out, tend to kill lots of young people. Hardly any children have died from COVID-19 and there have been no excess deaths among the under-50s.
Also apparently we used to have 'fever hospitals'. They were scrapped in the 1980s and 1990s.
(I have to acknowledge I only know the word primogeniture due to playing Crusader Kings II)
I had a serious diagnosis about 8 weeks ago, and am now doing a course of treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies - which has meant weekly hospital visits. All on top of existing Type I Diabetes.
Excellent treatment by the local hospital, but not fun.
The deal was that there are special arrangements for NI but Stormont can end them and must on a regular basis give ongoing consent for them. Are you suggesting that was a lie?
Thats why the "astonishing failure " quote today is just so silly. Who else in the Country thinks the economic response has been an astonishing failure?
The essence of Nationalism is the "othering" of some people as nationals, and others not, defined by geography or ethnicity or both.
Fascism requires a militarised state and corporatisation of the economy, with an alignment of workers and owners to the state.
Throughout this whole COVID process many people here have been heaping praise upon the New Zealand government which is openly nationalist.
Do you consider the New Zealand government a terrible, "divisive" government?
Whom does the New Zealand government "hate"?
Is the New Zealand government "fascist".
Usual Government IT projects will start with a requirement list of XYZ and then the detail is added by which point XYZ is now XYZ if ABC occurs otherwise DQW unless R because of S in which case YED
Project die due to complexity and integrations so it's best to avoid it -but I will point out that one thing HMRC does have is a great Datawarehouse nowadays.
If the Head of State is the Supreme Governor of the CoE it makes sense for the former to be an Anglican. Or you could have disestablishment.
Don’t much care either way. But it is funny seeing anti-discrimination zealots seeing discrimination where none exists and ignoring one of the oldest forms of discrimination there has institutionally been in this country - and all this is in the monarchy, which embodies one of the daftest principles around.
To be clear I think HMQ does a good job and would not change the situation. There are far more important issues to be bothered about in Britain than the monarchy.
Under the previous proposal, the UK-wide (please note) backstop was intended as a temporary measure until an agreement could be reached. From the EU's point of view, that was actually rather a bad deal, because it compromised their control of the Single Market while actually it would have given us almost everything we wanted as a nation (frictionless trade but an end to the free movement of labour). This could, of course, have also been ended at any time by the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland either jointly agreeing to reunification (as set out in Article 3 of the Irish Constitution and the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1998) or by agreeing to place border checks.
So yes. I am comfortable saying Johnson lied.
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
Since March, I’ve lost one-and-a-quarter stone by controlling my diet and following a fitness programme.
My denial of all the extra yummy food and relaxation time I could have had was obviously pointless, though, seeing as I lost that weight, anyway... I could have eaten so much more and spent so much time with my feet up, couldn’t I?
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
It is a mildly amusing distraction to explain without explaining to Philip the situation in Ireland as he fundamentally misunderstands what has been going on there and with Boris.
Now if he has any sense he will print out your post and refer to it in future conversations which will spoil our fun.
* Every four years there is a vote is perfectly reasonable to have a time interval, that's like having elections after 4 or 5 years. I said a one-off vote is not OK because it is permanent and irreversible, but every 4 years is not.
* "Enormous pressure" . . . so what? Politicians are under all forms of pressures every time they vote anyway. There was enormous pressure not to vote for Brexit but we did.
Take away the pressure and time intervals, which all democracies face and have always faced, the simple truth remains that it is up to Stormont. If Stormont chooses to ignore the pressure and end the arrangements then that is their choice. If Stormont chooses to give in to pressure and continue the arrangements then that is their choice. The voters get to choose what kind of people go to Stormont. It is purely democratic.
Under the far inferior previous proposal the UK-wide backstop may have been intended as temporary but was in fact permanent until a new arrangement was reached. There was no time lapse and there was no unilateral exit regardless of how Stormont or Westminster voted.
So what lie? The principle was always agreed that Stormont could agree to differing arrangements with Britain . . . it was the lack of Stormont being involved that was the issue under May.
But maybe that's a Scot speaking from the perspoective of the battlefield of centuries against Stuart Erastianism.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1286254504376139776
Johnson resigned in protest at the idea of the EU having control over part of the UK. He then negotiated an agreement that did exactly that.
So again - yes he lied. No, he did not resign on principle.
If there is one thing Boris Johnson has proved throughout his career as a journalist and politician it is that he has a deep, abiding and principled commitment to just one thing - himself.
We should prepare for no deal.
That is mysterious ways indeed.
If you thought Covid has impacted the economy wait to you see what the inability to import goods will do..
The people of Northern Ireland weren't sovereign in the backstop as they'd be subject to rules they had no unilateral exit from.
The people of Northern Ireland are sovereign under Boris's deal as they'd be subject to rules only with their ongoing consent and they can choose to leave.
Unless Topping you wish to take back the 'always sovereign' remark then that is a major change between Boris's deal and May's.
The Brexit food stores are being built up again at Rotten towers.
The tories have opposition on the right in Wales with the Brexit party running for the Senedd.
It will be interesting to see if the tories in Wales become a bit different to the national party to counter the BP threat.
The question is whether he stays left, or whether he drifts back to the right again
I used to work in the voluntary sector, so recruitment had to follow strict policies, and I always encouraged feedback. On a few occasions I'd have loved to pass on info about really daft things people did, but they tended not to ask!
We did have one IT project, where the people applying were mostly from the private sector. We'd normally get a few dozen applications for a job as you have to put in quite a lot of effort with the forms, but this time we had over 400. I wrote to everyone and explaining exactly how many we'd had and why a lot of good candidates might not even get an interview.
Quite a few people replied to thank me as they rarely got any feedback at all, and one in particular wrote a lovely note. She'd been in London for a while and was well qualified, but was getting nowhere with applying for better jobs. She said she had no idea competition was so high, and following my email, started looking in other cities, and got a really good job straight away.
The takeaway I'd say for you, is that competition is fierce, and most of the time progressing will depend on who else applies. Asking for feedback is really important, but even then, I've seen a lot of people try to come up with "reasons" when it's often somebody much more qualified, or who they know that got appointed.
Finally, did you call for feedback, or just email? Calling may be more likely to get a response, as it's a quick 2 mins - but I wouldn't hold your breath. It may be more about persistence, and sadly in your field, making the right contacts.