I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
Its the law if you receive broadcast tv. A lot of us have simply opted out because it offers nothing of value.
Streamed tv = watch what I want exactly when I want it, pause it if I want, rewind it etc. Watch it on the train, waiting for an appointment cost 7£ a month
Broadcast tv = watch what they choose to show when they want to show it, sit through tedious adverts and yes that includes the bbc watch only where you can put a tv...cost 14£ a month
Now I can't think for the life of me why increasing numbers of us are saying meh and abandoning the bbc tax altogether
We would do well to remember at this juncture that, back in March/April time, cyclists and runners were being demonised (largely, I suspect, by the same censorious types who are a bit too eager to scream about people not wearing masks nowadays) as nasty, selfish plague spreaders whose heavy breathing was responsible for butchering legions of defenceless old ladies with lethal aerosol clouds.
Now, just a few months on (and with our knowledge of the relative safety of outdoor environments and the risk of the virus to fat people having advanced somewhat,) cyclists are Heroes of the Revolution. Use of bikes for exercise and transportation alike is now deemed so desirable that our towns and cities should be redesigned to encourage it.
Funny how received wisdom so often turns out to be total bollocks, ain't it?
Some cyclists and joggers were criticised, and rightly so, for their loutish and selfish behaviour at the time. For example taking their exercise in crowded residential areas and expecting everyone else to make way for them.
Such isolated examples typically being used as a weapon with which to beat all of them about the head, of course.
Not at all. One of the bitterest complaints I heard was from a very keen runner.
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
High street still around 20 to 25% a few shops now have staff at the door Tesco's maybe 65% with masks staff making no effort to confront non wearers. While there I saw at least 2 people remove masks and put them in their bag after seeing how many weren't bothering.
Let's make the most unstable Government in the world, on a small swing.
I reckon if the Tories were down to 305 seats they'd not be able to find anyone to govern with, unless the Lib Dems want to give it another go (I wonder what our resident Lib Dems think?).
That means the Tories lose 60 seats. I reckon 4 of those come from the SNP. Say 14 come from the Lib Dems, target 14 for them is Cities of London and Westminster, majority 3,953.
That leaves 42 for Labour. Swing required: 3.84%, majority 4230. Some of those seats include SNP seats but if they're anti-Tory anyway the numbers are the same.
That means Labour is on 244. SNP is on 52. Lib Dems on 25.
SDLP + Greens + Plaid puts them over the line. In fact the Lib Dems could probably be on 20 and they'd probably have enough seats.
How long would this Government last? Not very long, perhaps long enough to allow PR.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
There's a film set in Wells (Somerset) that parodies TV murder series - but police rather than amateur tecs - in that sort of way. Hot Fuzz. Rather good fun.
Let's make the most unstable Government in the world, on a small swing.
I reckon if the Tories were down to 305 seats they'd not be able to find anyone to govern with, unless the Lib Dems want to give it another go (I wonder what our resident Lib Dems think?).
That means the Tories lose 60 seats. I reckon 4 of those come from the SNP. Say 14 come from the Lib Dems, target 14 for them is Cities of London and Westminster, majority 3,953.
That leaves 42 for Labour. Swing required: 3.84%, majority 4230. Some of those seats include SNP seats but if they're anti-Tory anyway the numbers are the same.
That means Labour is on 244. SNP is on 52. Lib Dems on 25.
SDLP + Greens + Plaid puts them over the line. In fact the Lib Dems could probably be on 20 and they'd probably have enough seats.
How long would this Government last? Not very long, perhaps long enough to allow PR.
Tough to get PR through without either a referendum or a fresh election. The Lords would probably block it for the two sessions without one or the other.
So we would be looking at a minimum of a year, more likely two.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
The one thing you have to remember about Boris Johnson is he will always say what he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear.
There won't be "a" deal - there will be "many" deals each tailored to the audience Boris is addressing at the time. Everyone will come away thinking they have what they want and it'll only be later they'll release they've been sold out.
Part of the Johnson act is keeping people happy enough to keep the faith with him. He will doubtless ridicule or scoff (as will his supporters) those who point out the inadequacies in his pronouncements but that won't bother him.
The Devil as always will be in the detail but that's not what Boris cares about - he cares about the headlines that will make it look as though he has won a great victory and the EU has abjectly surrendered (I can almost see the Express front page now).
Let's make the most unstable Government in the world, on a small swing.
I reckon if the Tories were down to 305 seats they'd not be able to find anyone to govern with, unless the Lib Dems want to give it another go (I wonder what our resident Lib Dems think?).
That means the Tories lose 60 seats. I reckon 4 of those come from the SNP. Say 14 come from the Lib Dems, target 14 for them is Cities of London and Westminster, majority 3,953.
That leaves 42 for Labour. Swing required: 3.84%, majority 4230. Some of those seats include SNP seats but if they're anti-Tory anyway the numbers are the same.
That means Labour is on 244. SNP is on 52. Lib Dems on 25.
SDLP + Greens + Plaid puts them over the line. In fact the Lib Dems could probably be on 20 and they'd probably have enough seats.
How long would this Government last? Not very long, perhaps long enough to allow PR.
Tough to get PR through without either a referendum or a fresh election. The Lords would probably block it for the two sessions without one or the other.
So we would be looking at a minimum of a year, more likely two.
I don’t see such a coalition lasting that long.
What could possibly be achieved by such a Government and when it's collapse came, what would happen then?
Would Labour get more seats because they'd argue they'd been blocked? Would a resurgent Tory Party return to the fold? Who knows
We would do well to remember at this juncture that, back in March/April time, cyclists and runners were being demonised (largely, I suspect, by the same censorious types who are a bit too eager to scream about people not wearing masks nowadays) as nasty, selfish plague spreaders whose heavy breathing was responsible for butchering legions of defenceless old ladies with lethal aerosol clouds.
Now, just a few months on (and with our knowledge of the relative safety of outdoor environments and the risk of the virus to fat people having advanced somewhat,) cyclists are Heroes of the Revolution. Use of bikes for exercise and transportation alike is now deemed so desirable that our towns and cities should be redesigned to encourage it.
Funny how received wisdom so often turns out to be total bollocks, ain't it?
Some cyclists and joggers were criticised, and rightly so, for their loutish and selfish behaviour at the time. For example taking their exercise in crowded residential areas and expecting everyone else to make way for them.
Such isolated examples typically being used as a weapon with which to beat all of them about the head, of course.
Not at all. One of the bitterest complaints I heard was from a very keen runner.
"Isolated examples" my rosy red you-know-what! Unless by "isolated" you mean 1/4 or more of the "examples" yours truly is forced to encounter on the sidewalks of my fair city.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
Its the law if you receive broadcast tv. A lot of us have simply opted out because it offers nothing of value.
Streamed tv = watch what I want exactly when I want it, pause it if I want, rewind it etc. Watch it on the train, waiting for an appointment cost 7£ a month
Broadcast tv = watch what they choose to show when they want to show it, sit through tedious adverts and yes that includes the bbc watch only where you can put a tv...cost 14£ a month
Now I can't think for the life of me why increasing numbers of us are saying meh and abandoning the bbc tax altogether
Ok, so if you're making a personal financial decision within the law that's impeccable and beyond reproach. Although I'm starting to question your attitude to money - what with throwing £50 away on that PC Harper case bet in such cavalier fashion.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
There's a film set in Wells (Somerset) that parodies TV murder series - but police rather than amateur tecs - in that sort of way. Hot Fuzz. Rather good fun.
1970's cop shows always had two tough guy (or lady - cagney and Lacey) cops who would take no messing about from anyone but would cower like a schoolboys when called to their (always) implausibly angry boss (often black - very progressive!) and of course all 1970's detectives were so dedicated to their jobs that they used to bunk off holidays to continue to work or even do so when they got sacked by that implausibly angry boss
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
There's a film set in Wells (Somerset) that parodies TV murder series - but police rather than amateur tecs - in that sort of way. Hot Fuzz. Rather good fun.
1970's cop shows always had two tough guy (or lady - cagney and Lacey) cops who would take no messing about from anyone but would cower like a schoolboys when called to their (always) implausibly angry boss (often black - very progressive!) and of course all 1970's detectives were so dedicated to their jobs that they used to bunk off holidays to continue to work or even do so when they got sacked by that implausibly angry boss
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
I doubt a Labour government would agree to one has soon as they got elected though. They'd want at least 2 years to demonstrate "all the good things we are doing for Scotland", and hope any built up resentment would recede in that time period.
That makes the heroic assumption that Labour can get all the way to an overall majority, rather than being critically dependent on SNP votes.
They won't be as reliant on the SNP if they can help the Lib Dems to win a few of their 100 target seats
I think if Labour can win 300+ seats they could probably form a government without needing SNP support, if the Lib Dems made a handful of gains as well. They could definitely do it with 310.
Labour seats on 202 seats, to achieve 310 seats they'd need to make 108 gains.
108 gains would need a swing of 9%, more than Blair achieved in 1997 which doesn't seem very likely to me.
However, realistically they could probably get away with more like 290 seats, a 7% swing. Even a terrible night for the SNP would result in a Labour minority Government, it would seem.
If the Lib Dems can even get into the 20s (Lib Dem target 13 has a 4280 majority), that number tumbles.
We really need to get it on the left, the Lib Dems doing well helps us.
They used to help Labour once, but they've pretty much regressed to being the old Liberal Party circa 1966 in terms of electoral performance. They hold a handful of seats and do pitifully almost everywhere else. Their old power base in the South West has been destroyed; most of their marginals are the product of Remainian sentiment in the wealthier parts of the London commuter belt and that cause (which is the only thing that anybody knows about the Lib Dem policy platform) is now dead. And all that is before we begin to consider what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Tory-leaning constituencies should the party membership choose to install Layla Moran.
If Labour wants to win outright then, assuming it can't get very far in Scotland, it's going to have to find a means to appeal to voters way, way down its target list - in places like Monmouth, Welwyn Hatfield, Hexham and Basingstoke. If that's too much of a stretch then it's going to have to figure out how to reach an accommodation with Scottish Nationalism without being wrecked by it, which may prove somewhat challenging. The likelihood of Labour getting reasonably close to a majority *and* the Lib Dems having picked up enough MPs to get them over the finishing line without having to treat with Nicola Sturgeon seems remote.
We would do well to remember at this juncture that, back in March/April time, cyclists and runners were being demonised (largely, I suspect, by the same censorious types who are a bit too eager to scream about people not wearing masks nowadays) as nasty, selfish plague spreaders whose heavy breathing was responsible for butchering legions of defenceless old ladies with lethal aerosol clouds.
Now, just a few months on (and with our knowledge of the relative safety of outdoor environments and the risk of the virus to fat people having advanced somewhat,) cyclists are Heroes of the Revolution. Use of bikes for exercise and transportation alike is now deemed so desirable that our towns and cities should be redesigned to encourage it.
Funny how received wisdom so often turns out to be total bollocks, ain't it?
I don't think those two things are contradictory.
We've been keen to increase the amount of cycling for a long time - whether for environmental, personal health or other reasons.
And early on in the CV-19 epidemic, we were being extra cautious.
Early on in the pandemic, a lot of people were being hysterical and very nasty. They wanted people doing exercise shot with crossbows and such like.
Later on in the pandemic, the same people are still being hysterical and very nasty. They've just switched hobby horses. Now they want people who dislike mask wearing shot with crossbows and such like. They were wrong about exercise and they might yet turn out to be wrong about masks, but that's entirely incidental to the main motivation which is to feel self-righteous and to enjoy bullying others.
Give it another few months and the same people will be bludgeoning and shaming the enemy into submission for not balancing a fluorescent green hexagon on their heads, or whatever the infraction du jour happens to be.
I don't want anyone shot for not wearing a mask.
But all the "anti mask" research is about protecting yourself from the virus. Which entirely misses the point. You wear a mask - just as a surgeon wears a mask - to stop *you* spreading the virus.
It's really not complicated.
Not really, but the plague, and how to deal with, it may become a valuable philosophical lesson to take away for many of us. Homo sapiens is a zoon politicon, partly, but utilitarian concepts always have to fight our darker instincts. The pandemic should, among other things, teach us that, in this context - and presumably others - the only winning strategy in the end will be to protect "the other" in order to protect *ourselves* i.e. our individual self and the concentric circles of our relations and aquaintances.
We would do well to remember at this juncture that, back in March/April time, cyclists and runners were being demonised (largely, I suspect, by the same censorious types who are a bit too eager to scream about people not wearing masks nowadays) as nasty, selfish plague spreaders whose heavy breathing was responsible for butchering legions of defenceless old ladies with lethal aerosol clouds.
Now, just a few months on (and with our knowledge of the relative safety of outdoor environments and the risk of the virus to fat people having advanced somewhat,) cyclists are Heroes of the Revolution. Use of bikes for exercise and transportation alike is now deemed so desirable that our towns and cities should be redesigned to encourage it.
Funny how received wisdom so often turns out to be total bollocks, ain't it?
Some cyclists and joggers were criticised, and rightly so, for their loutish and selfish behaviour at the time. For example taking their exercise in crowded residential areas and expecting everyone else to make way for them.
Such isolated examples typically being used as a weapon with which to beat all of them about the head, of course.
Not at all. One of the bitterest complaints I heard was from a very keen runner.
"Isolated examples" my rosy red you-know-what! Unless by "isolated" you mean 1/4 or more of the "examples" yours truly is forced to encounter on the sidewalks of my fair city.
Exactly, that's not far off my own count. I have to get up at sparrow-fart (0630) just to have time to have breakfast and then head straight out for a walk without too much rick of running, or at least being run into by, a runner. I saw one middle class type with posh kit and leectronic gadget basically almost run over an old lady and her dog - utterly robotic, it was liket he scene from Jekyll and Hyde where Hyde simply tramples over a little girl in the street. He wasn't going to lose a millisecond on his daily time by detouring to the middle of the street, let alone the other side. And this was at 7.30 on a Sunday. I wonder whaty the residents made of my expressing my opinion of him very loudly and vocally.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Why do we need 5G when the present system is adequate?
Its technologically far superior and as we get more smart devices connecting it has far more potential capacity.
A bit like how years ago we needed to move to 64 bit operating systems because 32 bit couldn't go beyond 4GB of memory, but the transition began before more than 4GB was mainstream. 4G is OK for what we have now but it won't be fine forever.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
I doubt a Labour government would agree to one has soon as they got elected though. They'd want at least 2 years to demonstrate "all the good things we are doing for Scotland", and hope any built up resentment would recede in that time period.
That makes the heroic assumption that Labour can get all the way to an overall majority, rather than being critically dependent on SNP votes.
They won't be as reliant on the SNP if they can help the Lib Dems to win a few of their 100 target seats
I think if Labour can win 300+ seats they could probably form a government without needing SNP support, if the Lib Dems made a handful of gains as well. They could definitely do it with 310.
Labour seats on 202 seats, to achieve 310 seats they'd need to make 108 gains.
108 gains would need a swing of 9%, more than Blair achieved in 1997 which doesn't seem very likely to me.
However, realistically they could probably get away with more like 290 seats, a 7% swing. Even a terrible night for the SNP would result in a Labour minority Government, it would seem.
If the Lib Dems can even get into the 20s (Lib Dem target 13 has a 4280 majority), that number tumbles.
We really need to get it on the left, the Lib Dems doing well helps us.
They used to help Labour once, but they've pretty much regressed to being the old Liberal Party circa 1966 in terms of electoral performance. They hold a handful of seats and do pitifully almost everywhere else. Their old power base in the South West has been destroyed; most of their marginals are the product of Remainian sentiment in the wealthier parts of the London commuter belt and that cause (which is the only thing that anybody knows about the Lib Dem policy platform) is now dead. And all that is before we begin to consider what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Tory-leaning constituencies should the party membership choose to install Layla Moran.
If Labour wants to win outright then, assuming it can't get very far in Scotland, it's going to have to find a means to appeal to voters way, way down its target list - in places like Monmouth, Welwyn Hatfield, Hexham and Basingstoke. If that's too much of a stretch then it's going to have to figure out how to reach an accommodation with Scottish Nationalism without being wrecked by it, which may prove somewhat challenging. The likelihood of Labour getting reasonably close to a majority *and* the Lib Dems having picked up enough MPs to get them over the finishing line without having to treat with Nicola Sturgeon seems remote.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
LOL. Sounds great. I'd definitely watch that. Doubt my mum would though.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
Its the law if you receive broadcast tv. A lot of us have simply opted out because it offers nothing of value.
Streamed tv = watch what I want exactly when I want it, pause it if I want, rewind it etc. Watch it on the train, waiting for an appointment cost 7£ a month
Broadcast tv = watch what they choose to show when they want to show it, sit through tedious adverts and yes that includes the bbc watch only where you can put a tv...cost 14£ a month
Now I can't think for the life of me why increasing numbers of us are saying meh and abandoning the bbc tax altogether
Ok, so if you're making a personal financial decision within the law that's impeccable and beyond reproach. Although I'm starting to question your attitude to money - what with throwing £50 away on that PC Harper case bet in such cavalier fashion.
I didnt cut the cord for financial reasons I cut it because I don't want anything to do with the bbc as its frankly crap. I never watched bbc channels when I had a license so when I found I could view everything I wanted anyway without broadcast I chucked it in the bin where it belongs.
I merely added the monthly cost in as one of the pluses its you that seems to think its all about money not me.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Indeed, and I stand corrected. I had had another Scottish Tory in mind but he was a peer - not a MP.
AIUI Donaldson was very promptly released as they realised someone had been fibbing when informing on him.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
There's a film set in Wells (Somerset) that parodies TV murder series - but police rather than amateur tecs - in that sort of way. Hot Fuzz. Rather good fun.
1970's cop shows always had two tough guy (or lady - cagney and Lacey) cops who would take no messing about from anyone but would cower like a schoolboys when called to their (always) implausibly angry boss (often black - very progressive!) and of course all 1970's detectives were so dedicated to their jobs that they used to bunk off holidays to continue to work or even do so when they got sacked by that implausibly angry boss
I am trying to remember who pointed out that Bad Boys was actually very progressive - by inverting the classic racial casting. So the heros were black, the backup team are Latino, the token(isn) boss is white etc etc,.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Indeed, and I stand corrected. AIUI Donaldson was very promptly released as they realised someone had been fibbing when informing on him.
He was released after six weeks, although that wasn’t perhaps as unusual as some people think. Over 4,000 people were interned under 18B, but few were kept for the duration. It could sometimes be used as a warning shot for people whose loyalties were considered doubtful.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
Mike Parson, who took over for a scandal-plagued predecessor in 2018, is fighting an increasingly close battle for election in his own right. After Missouri voted to legalize medical marijuana in November 2018, the state’s new Republican governor, Mike Parson, moved quickly to certify tens of thousands of patients and begin licensing cannabis businesses.
But what seemed at first to be an easy source of voter satisfaction and a new cache of revenue to the state has boomeranged badly: A flood of complaints led to state and federal corruption probes that now threaten Parson’s 2020 campaign.
The governor’s close personal friend and fundraiser, Steve Tilley, is at the center of the probes. He represented lucrative clients who appeared to receive a boost in the licensing process. The campaign of Parson’s presumptive Democratic opponent, State Auditor Nicole Galloway, put out a taunting memo declaring, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” . . .
In the wake of the investigations, the race has become increasingly competitive, according to polls and rating services. While Missouri is firmly red when it comes to presidential elections, state offices are another matter.,, . . .
Dissatisfaction with Parson’s handling of marijuana goes beyond just his close ties to Tilley, which date back to when both men were members of the state legislature. The Parson administration's decision to cap the number of state licenses has led to a staggering number of administrative appeals — more than 800. A lawsuit aiming to overturn the cap heads to trial this fall. . . .
The Parson administration's choices of marijuana regulators also have been criticized for their political and industry connections. House lawmakers are looking into why Parson tapped former Republican state Rep. Lyndall Fraker — who has no prior medical experience — to head the medical marijuana unit. His administration then brought on Amy Moore as Fraker's deputy, after she served in various roles at the Missouri Public Service Commission. Moore’s husband is a lawyer who serves cannabis industry clients, which has drawn questions from lawmakers.
NOTE - latest poll on Missouri Governors Race YouGov, June 23-July 1, 900 likely voters
Mike Parson (R-incumbent) 41% Nicole Galloway (D) 38%
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
I think they are right because for a start the BBC would cock up becoming a subscription service by overvaluing how much the subscription is worth.
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
The end result under May - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
The end result under Johnson - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
Difference? Like you say, perceptions. Broadbrush perceptions are more important than substance and detail.
Johnson is seen as a proper Leaver - even better, THE proper Leaver - so Leavers are more likely to accept his Soft Brexit as proper Leave.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
LOL. Sounds great. I'd definitely watch that. Doubt my mum would though.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
The end result under May - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
The end result under Johnson - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
Difference? Like you say, perceptions. Broadbrush perceptions are more important than substance and detail.
Johnson is seen as a proper Leaver - even better, THE proper Leaver - so Leavers are more likely to accept his Soft Brexit as proper Leave.
The devil is in the detail.
Boris's deal was different to May's in ways that mattered to leavers. That remainers didn't understand the difference is because they don't understand the detail that mattered.
That looks encouraging (especially given all the clucking we've heard about Luton just lately, which in fact doesn't seem to be doing that badly.
Although, mind you, compare it with Stevenage, which is only about a dozen miles down the road, and the difference is quite stark. Even accounting for the fact that Luton is about twice the size, it's still doing vastly worse.
One of the other notable differences between the two is that Stevenage is a post-War new town. More evidence that these outbreaks *might* be exacerbated by lots of people being stuffed into rows of shitty little old terraced houses?
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
Johnson was willing to throw the DUP under the bus and May wasn't. If May had been willing to put up a customs border in the Irish Sea she could have got exactly the same deal. Also, maybe worth pointing out that Johnson isn't really a Leaver. Although as others have pointed out, he is very good at telling people what they want to hear, which works well with low information voters and the terminally gullible (the ERG). Eventually reality will intrude, but I am guessing he will be long gone by then, milking the speaker and junket circuit like a greedy man with a lot of child support to pay for.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
I doubt a Labour government would agree to one has soon as they got elected though. They'd want at least 2 years to demonstrate "all the good things we are doing for Scotland", and hope any built up resentment would recede in that time period.
That makes the heroic assumption that Labour can get all the way to an overall majority, rather than being critically dependent on SNP votes.
They won't be as reliant on the SNP if they can help the Lib Dems to win a few of their 100 target seats
I think if Labour can win 300+ seats they could probably form a government without needing SNP support, if the Lib Dems made a handful of gains as well. They could definitely do it with 310.
Labour seats on 202 seats, to achieve 310 seats they'd need to make 108 gains.
108 gains would need a swing of 9%, more than Blair achieved in 1997 which doesn't seem very likely to me.
However, realistically they could probably get away with more like 290 seats, a 7% swing. Even a terrible night for the SNP would result in a Labour minority Government, it would seem.
If the Lib Dems can even get into the 20s (Lib Dem target 13 has a 4280 majority), that number tumbles.
We really need to get it on the left, the Lib Dems doing well helps us.
They used to help Labour once, but they've pretty much regressed to being the old Liberal Party circa 1966 in terms of electoral performance. They hold a handful of seats and do pitifully almost everywhere else. Their old power base in the South West has been destroyed; most of their marginals are the product of Remainian sentiment in the wealthier parts of the London commuter belt and that cause (which is the only thing that anybody knows about the Lib Dem policy platform) is now dead. And all that is before we begin to consider what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Tory-leaning constituencies should the party membership choose to install Layla Moran.
If Labour wants to win outright then, assuming it can't get very far in Scotland, it's going to have to find a means to appeal to voters way, way down its target list - in places like Monmouth, Welwyn Hatfield, Hexham and Basingstoke. If that's too much of a stretch then it's going to have to figure out how to reach an accommodation with Scottish Nationalism without being wrecked by it, which may prove somewhat challenging. The likelihood of Labour getting reasonably close to a majority *and* the Lib Dems having picked up enough MPs to get them over the finishing line without having to treat with Nicola Sturgeon seems remote.
2005?
Was 15 years ago. Which, the way politics has gone, might as well have been 1832.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
I doubt a Labour government would agree to one has soon as they got elected though. They'd want at least 2 years to demonstrate "all the good things we are doing for Scotland", and hope any built up resentment would recede in that time period.
That makes the heroic assumption that Labour can get all the way to an overall majority, rather than being critically dependent on SNP votes.
They won't be as reliant on the SNP if they can help the Lib Dems to win a few of their 100 target seats
I think if Labour can win 300+ seats they could probably form a government without needing SNP support, if the Lib Dems made a handful of gains as well. They could definitely do it with 310.
Labour seats on 202 seats, to achieve 310 seats they'd need to make 108 gains.
108 gains would need a swing of 9%, more than Blair achieved in 1997 which doesn't seem very likely to me.
However, realistically they could probably get away with more like 290 seats, a 7% swing. Even a terrible night for the SNP would result in a Labour minority Government, it would seem.
If the Lib Dems can even get into the 20s (Lib Dem target 13 has a 4280 majority), that number tumbles.
We really need to get it on the left, the Lib Dems doing well helps us.
They used to help Labour once, but they've pretty much regressed to being the old Liberal Party circa 1966 in terms of electoral performance. They hold a handful of seats and do pitifully almost everywhere else. Their old power base in the South West has been destroyed; most of their marginals are the product of Remainian sentiment in the wealthier parts of the London commuter belt and that cause (which is the only thing that anybody knows about the Lib Dem policy platform) is now dead. And all that is before we begin to consider what happens to the Lib Dem vote in Tory-leaning constituencies should the party membership choose to install Layla Moran.
If Labour wants to win outright then, assuming it can't get very far in Scotland, it's going to have to find a means to appeal to voters way, way down its target list - in places like Monmouth, Welwyn Hatfield, Hexham and Basingstoke. If that's too much of a stretch then it's going to have to figure out how to reach an accommodation with Scottish Nationalism without being wrecked by it, which may prove somewhat challenging. The likelihood of Labour getting reasonably close to a majority *and* the Lib Dems having picked up enough MPs to get them over the finishing line without having to treat with Nicola Sturgeon seems remote.
2005?
Was 15 years ago. Which, the way politics has gone, might as well have been 1832.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
As a Unionist, please. They did not become the Conservatives again until 1925.
Moreover, there is some dispute about how committed he was to Unionism as compared to what may be called Lloyd Georgism.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Indeed, and I stand corrected. I had had another Scottish Tory in mind but he was a peer - not a MP.
I’m intrigued. Who was that? I thought Churchill fought shy of imprisoning peers, as they might have the right of appeal to the House of Lords.
High street still around 20 to 25% a few shops now have staff at the door Tesco's maybe 65% with masks staff making no effort to confront non wearers. While there I saw at least 2 people remove masks and put them in their bag after seeing how many weren't bothering.
Where are you exactly as nobody else seems to be reporting such low mask wearing inside shop? Where we are (north west) sure only about 25-30% wearing masks outside but almost 100% in every shop we went in. Nobody was enforcing it, people were simply doing it. Has anyone else been in a big shop over the last two days where 35% of customers weren't wearing masks?
At least the government has started moving a bit more quickly.
That will bugger the overseas tourism trade.
My school has advised all staff that if they go abroad at half term or Christmas and have to quarantine on their return that will be unauthorised leave and staff will not be paid.
Thought that I'd state the bleedin' obvious that ubiquitous mask wearing means two sets of barriers to transmission between an infected person and a non-infected person.
PB Snap Quiz - who was WORST American Ambassador (or in early days Minister) to the Court of St. James?
Arguably Trumpsky's shill more than makes the grade.
He's nowhere near.
Worst was Joe Kennedy by a mile.
From Brit perspective, certainly. From American perspective, quite probably.
As for BEST American in this role, my vote is for Charles Francis Adams. NOT Mr Popularity in London, but did a damn fine job for US under VERY trying circumstances 1861-68. AND he lived long enough to see the Brits forced to pay for their perfidy re; the Alabama Claims
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
Johnson was willing to throw the DUP under the bus and May wasn't. If May had been willing to put up a customs border in the Irish Sea she could have got exactly the same deal. Also, maybe worth pointing out that Johnson isn't really a Leaver. Although as others have pointed out, he is very good at telling people what they want to hear, which works well with low information voters and the terminally gullible (the ERG). Eventually reality will intrude, but I am guessing he will be long gone by then, milking the speaker and junket circuit like a greedy man with a lot of child support to pay for.
There was a solution designed that would screw the DUP. The DUP objected.
May's solution was insanely deciding to extend the solution the DUP objected to, to everyone! So everyone was screwed together.
Boris's solution was to go back to the solution the DUP objected to and to tweak it enough to get it through, by adding Stormont's consent to the mechanism.
Boris's solution was far, far superior. Screwing everybody was not the solution. May should have screwed the DUP instead - good for Boris for doing that.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Indeed, and I stand corrected. I had had another Scottish Tory in mind but he was a peer - not a MP.
I’m intrigued. Who was that? I thought Churchill fought shy of imprisoning peers, as they might have the right of appeal to the House of Lords.
Churchill would have interned his own granny IF he thought she was a danger to national security.
That looks encouraging (especially given all the clucking we've heard about Luton just lately, which in fact doesn't seem to be doing that badly.
Although, mind you, compare it with Stevenage, which is only about a dozen miles down the road, and the difference is quite stark. Even accounting for the fact that Luton is about twice the size, it's still doing vastly worse.
One of the other notable differences between the two is that Stevenage is a post-War new town. More evidence that these outbreaks *might* be exacerbated by lots of people being stuffed into rows of shitty little old terraced houses?
I think that as testing resources etc have expanded and the system for tackling local outbreaks has got going, they* are going in earlier and trying to focus on smaller areas.
*combination of central government and various levels of local government, NHS etc.
That looks encouraging (especially given all the clucking we've heard about Luton just lately, which in fact doesn't seem to be doing that badly.
Although, mind you, compare it with Stevenage, which is only about a dozen miles down the road, and the difference is quite stark. Even accounting for the fact that Luton is about twice the size, it's still doing vastly worse.
One of the other notable differences between the two is that Stevenage is a post-War new town. More evidence that these outbreaks *might* be exacerbated by lots of people being stuffed into rows of shitty little old terraced houses?
And yet the government has changed planning rules to create a whole new generation of shitty slum housing (eg flats with no windows). While Johnson blathers on about "building back better". The thing to remember about this government is that there is no relationship between what they say they are doing and what they are actually doing.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
As a Unionist, please. They did not become the Conservatives again until 1925.
Moreover, there is some dispute about how committed he was to Unionism as compared to what may be called Lloyd Georgism.
His enthusiastic support for Irish Nationalism was a little unusual in a Unionist.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
LOL. Sounds great. I'd definitely watch that. Doubt my mum would though.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
Why would the BBC up their fee? Can you name any subscription service with as limited an output as the BBC that charges more than them?
If some choose to pay nothing and lose it then great! That's what free choice is all about, why would you mourn that?
The common-or-garden private media companies are better than the BBC. If the BBC were better then people would lovingly sign up for it.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Indeed, and I stand corrected. I had had another Scottish Tory in mind but he was a peer - not a MP.
I’m intrigued. Who was that? I thought Churchill fought shy of imprisoning peers, as they might have the right of appeal to the House of Lords.
My memory was wrong - the case I had in mind was covered up at the time. So you are again correct!
Thought that I'd state the bleedin' obvious that ubiquitous mask wearing means two sets of barriers to transmission between an infected person and a non-infected person.
Let's make the most unstable Government in the world, on a small swing.
I reckon if the Tories were down to 305 seats they'd not be able to find anyone to govern with, unless the Lib Dems want to give it another go (I wonder what our resident Lib Dems think?).
That means the Tories lose 60 seats. I reckon 4 of those come from the SNP. Say 14 come from the Lib Dems, target 14 for them is Cities of London and Westminster, majority 3,953.
That leaves 42 for Labour. Swing required: 3.84%, majority 4230. Some of those seats include SNP seats but if they're anti-Tory anyway the numbers are the same.
That means Labour is on 244. SNP is on 52. Lib Dems on 25.
SDLP + Greens + Plaid puts them over the line. In fact the Lib Dems could probably be on 20 and they'd probably have enough seats.
How long would this Government last? Not very long, perhaps long enough to allow PR.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times. I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Yes try YouTube. Or Amazon Prime. Or Netflix. Or a plethora of other options.
I see no reason why people who don't want to watch the BBC should be compelled to pay for it, just so others can watch Bergerac. That's not community.
The problem with the BBC now is that it is just crap. YouTube, Netflix etc are superior at what they do. Compelling people to pay for an inferior option is not a long-term solution.
Bergerac is no longer on the BBC. You need UK Drama to be able to see repeats.
Yep. My mum loves that too. ITV unfortunately - but it stars Nettles and that's the main thing.
There was recently a funny sketch done by a black comedy programme around midsomer murders in that instead of "that nice" Inspector Barnaby a New York angry black detective showed up in his Starsky and Hutch type car - they called it Midsomer Mf'kin Murders
LOL. Sounds great. I'd definitely watch that. Doubt my mum would though.
Thought that I'd state the bleedin' obvious that ubiquitous mask wearing means two sets of barriers to transmission between an infected person and a non-infected person.
You forgot the eyes.
Eye contact isn’t a factor.
Unless you frequently rub your eyes against somebody else’s...
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
As a Unionist, please. They did not become the Conservatives again until 1925.
Moreover, there is some dispute about how committed he was to Unionism as compared to what may be called Lloyd Georgism.
His enthusiastic support for Irish Nationalism was a little unusual in a Unionist.
Right after WWI, Mosley supported Irish nationalism AGAINST Lloyd George. And he left the "Unionist" party because of it's support for the Coalition's Black & Tan policy.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
'History'? It was Tory MPs who got banged up in WW2, and you might like to look into the political affiliations of the people involved in sectarianism, and in derailing the SNP's attempt to introduce what had been a cross-party initiative against it.
Only one serving MP was interned under 18B, although he was a Scottish Unionist:
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
As a Unionist, please. They did not become the Conservatives again until 1925.
Moreover, there is some dispute about how committed he was to Unionism as compared to what may be called Lloyd Georgism.
His enthusiastic support for Irish Nationalism was a little unusual in a Unionist.
If only his rampaging anti-semitism had not been so fashionable in the Labour Party recently...
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
Look we get you regard it as some national monument, to most those its just another fairly mediocre tv station. My father used to be like you since lockdown and I gave him my prime login and he has actually used it he has seen the light and just cancelled his tv license too.
There is nothing the BBC does well anymore that isn't done equally well by others about its only real reason for being supported anymore was its neutrality and its pretty much thrown that out the window in favour of wokeism too.
The sooner the license fee is abolished the better.
It's either No Deal (which might result in Tory remainers going Starmer or LD) or capitulation deal (which results in Johnson coalition splitting).
This seems like the highest the Tories will poll, at their GE19 level which to be fair is still very good.
That's what people were saying before Halloween and look what happened: Boris got a deal he sold as a great new deal to his supporters.
I expect history will repeat itself.
It will. "Boris" will indeed get a deal and he will indeed it sell it to his supporters as being "great". Nothing more certain. Wish there was a suitable BF market to clean up on.
You put it in quotation marks as if its not really great.
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
The end result under May - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
The end result under Johnson - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
Difference? Like you say, perceptions. Broadbrush perceptions are more important than substance and detail.
Johnson is seen as a proper Leaver - even better, THE proper Leaver - so Leavers are more likely to accept his Soft Brexit as proper Leave.
The devil is in the detail.
Boris's deal was different to May's in ways that mattered to leavers. That remainers didn't understand the difference is because they don't understand the detail that mattered.
Sure. As one goes around the pubs and clubs of the Red Wall, and of the Tory shires, and asks them why they liked Johnson's Exit deal but not May's, all one hears is a deafening, "It's because although he has agreed to a border in the Irish Sea, Stormont has the ability at some point in the future to vote to remove it."
In any case, water under the bridge and not what I was talking about. He's done that one. He's sold them on that. His challenge now is to sell the actual Brexit deal - close alignment - as proper Leave. And it will be a challenge. Not all the 52% are idiots.
Mosley first elected to Parliament as a Conservative.
Mosley is interesting. Many think he was the obvious leader for a puppet Government formed after a successful German invasion but his biographer and others have never subscribed to that view.
He wasn't the British equivalent of a Quisling or a Mussert in that he ever actively supported Germany or Italy over Britain.
Thought that I'd state the bleedin' obvious that ubiquitous mask wearing means two sets of barriers to transmission between an infected person and a non-infected person.
You forgot the eyes.
Eye contact isn’t a factor.
Unless you frequently rub your eyes against somebody else’s...
Probably more often via unwashed hands touching or rubbing eyes, but aerosol infection by that route is conceivable. I wear aerosol resistant safety specs at work.
Re the BBC - the really interesting question is what will Boris actually do?
Current LF settlement (CPI increases) runs from April 2017 to April 2021 inclusive.
But increases from April 2022 onwards are to be decided by Secretary of State - and note there is no vote in Parliament, no need to get a Bill through or any other obstacles.
In 2011, Cameron / Osborne imposed 6 year freeze (2011 to 2016), with BBC taking over funding World Service.
Then post GE 2015, they allowed CPI rises from 2017 to 2021 + BBC stops funding broadband + IPlayer loophole closed but BBC takes on over 75s funding (which in fact BBC will NOT now fund for most people).
So what will Boris do? Looks like no changes re over 75s, broadband, World Service - they have all now been tidied up.
With public spending cuts coming post Covid, Boris can surely at least go for another 6 year freeze (2022 to 2027). But does he dare go more radical? Say immediate10% cash cut and then freeze?
That would really shake things up given BBC is also now having to contend with falling LF sales (currently falling about 200,000 per year).
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
Why would the BBC up their fee? Can you name any subscription service with as limited an output as the BBC that charges more than them?
If some choose to pay nothing and lose it then great! That's what free choice is all about, why would you mourn that?
The common-or-garden private media companies are better than the BBC. If the BBC were better then people would lovingly sign up for it.
The BBC's archive alone is worth a fortune. It's a genuine national treasure. If that got into the hands of the wrong people it would be a tragedy.
Who was the worst BRITISH ambassador to the United States?
Would nominateSir Lionel Sackville-West, who "served" 1881-88. During the 1888 presidential campaign, a Republican sent sir Lionel a letter under the assumed name "Charles F. Murchison" claiming to be a British immigrant to America, and asking HM's envoy for his advise on whom to vote for president.
Here is S-W's reply"
Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, and beg to say that I fully appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself in casting your vote.
You are probably aware that any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity, and that the party in power is fully aware of this fact. The party, however, is, I believe, still desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain, and is still as desirous of settling all questions with Canada which have been unfortunately re-opened since the retraction of the treaty[note 1] by the Republican majority in the Senate and by the President's message, to which you allude.
All allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation as regards the Presidential election thus created. It is, however, impossible to predict the course which President Cleveland may pursue in the matter of retaliation should he be elected, but there is every reason to believe that, while upholding the position he has taken, he will manifest a spirit of conciliation in dealing with the question involved in his message. I inclose an article from the New York Times of the 22d of August, and remain, yours, faithfully,
— L.S. Sackville West., Beverly, Mass., September 13, 1888
"Murchison" immediately gave Sir Lionel's reply to the press. With the result that S-W was soon packing his bags to return to England, his career as a diplomat ended forever.
BTW, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but lost in the Electoral College. And the Murchison Letter played a role by stoking anti-British sentiment against the Democrats and for the Republicans - just intended by "Murchison" and the GOP.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
Why would the BBC up their fee? Can you name any subscription service with as limited an output as the BBC that charges more than them?
If some choose to pay nothing and lose it then great! That's what free choice is all about, why would you mourn that?
The common-or-garden private media companies are better than the BBC. If the BBC were better then people would lovingly sign up for it.
I subscribe to the Times, the FT, the Economist and the Fortean Times.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph but for some reason I still get it free because I subbed years ago.
TBH I would not especially miss any of them, and I may let most of them fall away.
I stopped paying my BBC licence fee a couple of months ago.Very liberating. Fuck the BBC.
Liberating. Terrific. But if others follow suit it will leave a funding gap and before too long there will be people all over the country, some elderly, some poor, some just a little unadventurous (no crime), who used to count on the BBC as being there for them, supplying them with something familiar and comforting and trusted each day, who will have this whipped out from under them. Not so terrific for them. And what do we say to these people? People like my mum who likes to watch endless repeats of Bergerac (or indeed anything with prime-of-life John Nettles in it). "Tough titty. Try YouTube." Is that what we tell them? If so, what sort of society are we becoming? C'mon. Sense of community please.
Perhaps you as a kind doting son could do what I did and let her have the logon to your amazon prime or netflix....those services are accessible from a number of devices.
If you have neither help her set up an account for herself it is still cheaper than the bbc extortion by about 50% and frankly then she wont have no choice but to watch ghastly lifestyle programs unless she wants to.
Your appeal to community is really an appeal for mediocrity , show the poor old lady some better options
I don't see BBC TV and Radio as mediocre. In fact if it went subscription I would be prepared to pay more than the current LF.
Good for you. They should do that then and you can do that and everyone's happy and you can continue to fund Antiques Roadshow or whatever else it is you love.
Just don't compel the rest of us to buy subscriptions by law if we want to watch any other TV live.
It's the LAW compelling you and you should comply unless and until it is changed. We are one nation under the law.
That's what I am objecting to and why I advocate a change in the law.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
It's the opposite I'm terrified of. Replace the LF with a market sub and what will likely happen is the BBC will charge the earth and profiteer. People like my mum will be prepared to cough up more than £15 pm for it. Ditto me. Ditto large swathes of the population. We'd be replacing quality public broadcasting affordable by most with a fully atomized free-for-all in which there will be more losers than winners. Some people will end up paying more for the same thing. Others will pay nothing and lose the BBC. And for what exactly? What is the great prize we seek from this upheaval? What do we get for ourselves? Just another common-or-garden private media company in place of what we had, which was the BBC. No thank you.
Look we get you regard it as some national monument, to most those its just another fairly mediocre tv station. My father used to be like you since lockdown and I gave him my prime login and he has actually used it he has seen the light and just cancelled his tv license too.
There is nothing the BBC does well anymore that isn't done equally well by others about its only real reason for being supported anymore was its neutrality and its pretty much thrown that out the window in favour of wokeism too.
The sooner the license fee is abolished the better.
Yes, I do think it's a national asset. And I accept there are others who think it's just some crappy TV station. Where I suspect you'd be surprised is where the silent majority are. I think they're with me. It sometimes seems not because all the noise comes from the abolitionists - the extremes are always rowdier let's face it - but if we had (say) a Referendum (Privatize v Don't Privatize) I'd be confident that "Don't" would prevail. British people like the BBC. It's one of the ties that bind.
So sad. I loved Peter. This week I have been trying to learn Oh Well and Black Magic Woman on the guitar.
I think had you offered him his last twenty five years back in the late 70s/early 80s he wouldn't have believed it possible. An amazing, though quite upsetting, story
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
We may now be just 3 years from Dissolution for an election to be held on May 2nd 2024.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
The implications of 4 more years of Mr Johnson in power are worth considering.
I doubt a Labour government would agree to one has soon as they got elected though. They'd want at least 2 years to demonstrate "all the good things we are doing for Scotland", and hope any built up resentment would recede in that time period.
That makes the heroic assumption that Labour can get all the way to an overall majority, rather than being critically dependent on SNP votes.
They won't be as reliant on the SNP if they can help the Lib Dems to win a few of their 100 target seats
I think if Labour can win 300+ seats they could probably form a government without needing SNP support, if the Lib Dems made a handful of gains as well. They could definitely do it with 310.
Labour seats on 202 seats, to achieve 310 seats they'd need to make 108 gains.
108 gains would need a swing of 9%, more than Blair achieved in 1997 which doesn't seem very likely to me.
However, realistically they could probably get away with more like 290 seats, a 7% swing. Even a terrible night for the SNP would result in a Labour minority Government, it would seem.
If the Lib Dems can even get into the 20s (Lib Dem target 13 has a 4280 majority), that number tumbles.
We really need to get it on the left, the Lib Dems doing well helps us.
Blair achieved a swing of circa 10.5% in 1997. Also relevant would be the extent of any Labour recovery in Scotland. If polls show Labour performing well across GB , I would expect them to go beyond their 2017 result there.
We would do well to remember at this juncture that, back in March/April time, cyclists and runners were being demonised (largely, I suspect, by the same censorious types who are a bit too eager to scream about people not wearing masks nowadays) as nasty, selfish plague spreaders whose heavy breathing was responsible for butchering legions of defenceless old ladies with lethal aerosol clouds.
Now, just a few months on (and with our knowledge of the relative safety of outdoor environments and the risk of the virus to fat people having advanced somewhat,) cyclists are Heroes of the Revolution. Use of bikes for exercise and transportation alike is now deemed so desirable that our towns and cities should be redesigned to encourage it.
Funny how received wisdom so often turns out to be total bollocks, ain't it?
Some cyclists and joggers were criticised, and rightly so, for their loutish and selfish behaviour at the time. For example taking their exercise in crowded residential areas and expecting everyone else to make way for them.
I think the anti-people-on-bikes stuff was about as relevant as the faked up 'concerned' photos of beaches and parks which appeared under yammering headlines in the newspapers.
In my town I am still seeing *many* more people on bikes than previously - like double or treble, albeit from a low base.
However, and this an important point, I think the horrors of Covid mean that Scots indy is unlikely in the next few years. The desire might by there, but the practicalities of our new poverty make it impossible.
Almost the whole of the political and business class of the country told the electorate that leaving the EU would be calamitous. The electorate voted to leave anyway.
The main obstacle to independence isn't the economy, it's Boris Johnson's stonewalling. The Scottish independence vote most likely happens 6-12 months after the Conservatives next go into Opposition at Westminster.
Does Scottish Independence not require the referendum to happen with the Tories in power at Westminster? The "we didn't vote for the Tories" factor is a big part of the equation, in my opinion.
No. If the Scots vote for the SNP to seek a new referendum and the Tories simply refuse to let it happen then the resentment will be stoked up and boil over at the first opportunity even if its when Labour have just taken over.
The fact that the Tories have gone won't reverse their resentment at being ignored and mistreated for years and the risk it could happen again in the future.
That's Sturgeon's strategy: get rebuffed by Johnson, and be able to portray this as "the Brits hate the Scots so much they won't even let us vote."
She doesn't really need a strategy any more. The number of independence supporters is so great that the Union is already beyond saving.
Any concessions to the Scottish Government are banked and then more are demanded. No concessions can ever be sufficient, of course, if your ultimate aim is full sovereignty and anything less is portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
Any concessions that are withheld are, on the other hand... portrayed as an insult to Scotland.
The independence supporters, of course, agree with all of this. As far as they are concerned, Scotland is a colony, the UK Government is the oppressor, and everything it has done and ever will do is an insult to Scotland.
There is no way to counter this conviction, especially given that Scotland has begun to elect, and will continue to elect until independence, an endless series of nationalist governments. The SNP is too strong to be beaten, and in any event the Unionist parties are hopelessly divided and show no interest in even trying.
Let's not forget the history. The SNP was founded in 1934 modelled on the German National Socialist Party. In the Second World War they encouraged Scots not to enlist in the British army. As years have passed they have become more fervently anti- English nationalist, and of course the Scots are good at racism, as one notes in Rangers-Celtic and all the sectarian stuff that still goes on.
Oh aye? You seem to really know your stuff.
'(Cunninghame Graham) was a Liberal Party Member of Parliament (MP); the first ever socialist member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; a founder, and the first president, of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; and the first president of the Scottish National Party in 1934.'
Comments
Streamed tv = watch what I want exactly when I want it, pause it if I want, rewind it etc. Watch it on the train, waiting for an appointment cost 7£ a month
Broadcast tv = watch what they choose to show when they want to show it, sit through tedious adverts and yes that includes the bbc watch only where you can put a tv...cost 14£ a month
Now I can't think for the life of me why increasing numbers of us are saying meh and abandoning the bbc tax altogether
The difference between May and Boris is that Boris understands his supporters. So he understands what compromises he can make that will be acceptable and which ones will be unacceptable.
Because May was never a Leaver in the first place she was trying to put forward her vision of what Leave should be . . . not the vision of Leave that was voted for.
That is why Boris was able to make a great compromise and why May failed.
High street still around 20 to 25% a few shops now have staff at the door
Tesco's maybe 65% with masks staff making no effort to confront non wearers. While there I saw at least 2 people remove masks and put them in their bag after seeing how many weren't bothering.
I reckon if the Tories were down to 305 seats they'd not be able to find anyone to govern with, unless the Lib Dems want to give it another go (I wonder what our resident Lib Dems think?).
That means the Tories lose 60 seats. I reckon 4 of those come from the SNP. Say 14 come from the Lib Dems, target 14 for them is Cities of London and Westminster, majority 3,953.
That leaves 42 for Labour. Swing required: 3.84%, majority 4230. Some of those seats include SNP seats but if they're anti-Tory anyway the numbers are the same.
That means Labour is on 244.
SNP is on 52.
Lib Dems on 25.
SDLP + Greens + Plaid puts them over the line. In fact the Lib Dems could probably be on 20 and they'd probably have enough seats.
How long would this Government last? Not very long, perhaps long enough to allow PR.
So we would be looking at a minimum of a year, more likely two.
I don’t see such a coalition lasting that long.
There won't be "a" deal - there will be "many" deals each tailored to the audience Boris is addressing at the time. Everyone will come away thinking they have what they want and it'll only be later they'll release they've been sold out.
Part of the Johnson act is keeping people happy enough to keep the faith with him. He will doubtless ridicule or scoff (as will his supporters) those who point out the inadequacies in his pronouncements but that won't bother him.
The Devil as always will be in the detail but that's not what Boris cares about - he cares about the headlines that will make it look as though he has won a great victory and the EU has abjectly surrendered (I can almost see the Express front page now).
The truth of course will be very different.
Would Labour get more seats because they'd argue they'd been blocked? Would a resurgent Tory Party return to the fold? Who knows
Absolute numbers -
Scaled to per 100K population
I remember the description under one episode of Bergerac was simply:
Why does Charlie Hungerford stay in Jersey?
If Labour wants to win outright then, assuming it can't get very far in Scotland, it's going to have to find a means to appeal to voters way, way down its target list - in places like Monmouth, Welwyn Hatfield, Hexham and Basingstoke. If that's too much of a stretch then it's going to have to figure out how to reach an accommodation with Scottish Nationalism without being wrecked by it, which may prove somewhat challenging. The likelihood of Labour getting reasonably close to a majority *and* the Lib Dems having picked up enough MPs to get them over the finishing line without having to treat with Nicola Sturgeon seems remote.
Homo sapiens is a zoon politicon, partly, but utilitarian concepts always have to fight our darker instincts.
The pandemic should, among other things, teach us that, in this context - and presumably others - the only winning strategy in the end will be to protect "the other" in order to protect *ourselves* i.e. our individual self and the concentric circles of our relations and aquaintances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Maule_Ramsay
Arthur Donaldson (SNP, indeed later the party leader) was interned, although there was always a suspicion this had as much to do with his anti-government activities as his rumoured German sympathies.
The other politicians I can remember offhand who were interned were Mosley, Beckett and Green, all of whom were ex-Labour before joining the BUF.
A bit like how years ago we needed to move to 64 bit operating systems because 32 bit couldn't go beyond 4GB of memory, but the transition began before more than 4GB was mainstream. 4G is OK for what we have now but it won't be fine forever.
I merely added the monthly cost in as one of the pluses its you that seems to think its all about money not me.
AIUI Donaldson was very promptly released as they realised someone had been fibbing when informing on him.
Once the law is changed then we can be done with this stupid poll tax and let the BBC sink or float on its own merits.
That so many of the BBCs ardent supporters are terrified that the licence fee being optional means the death of the BBC shows that they really think the BBC is not so good and that people won't optionally subscribe. If the BBC was fantastic value for money everyone would continue paying with the fee becoming optional.
Marijuana licensing woes dog Missouri’s governor
Mike Parson, who took over for a scandal-plagued predecessor in 2018, is fighting an increasingly close battle for election in his own right.
After Missouri voted to legalize medical marijuana in November 2018, the state’s new Republican governor, Mike Parson, moved quickly to certify tens of thousands of patients and begin licensing cannabis businesses.
But what seemed at first to be an easy source of voter satisfaction and a new cache of revenue to the state has boomeranged badly: A flood of complaints led to state and federal corruption probes that now threaten Parson’s 2020 campaign.
The governor’s close personal friend and fundraiser, Steve Tilley, is at the center of the probes. He represented lucrative clients who appeared to receive a boost in the licensing process. The campaign of Parson’s presumptive Democratic opponent, State Auditor Nicole Galloway, put out a taunting memo declaring, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” . . .
In the wake of the investigations, the race has become increasingly competitive, according to polls and rating services. While Missouri is firmly red when it comes to presidential elections, state offices are another matter.,, . . .
Dissatisfaction with Parson’s handling of marijuana goes beyond just his close ties to Tilley, which date back to when both men were members of the state legislature. The Parson administration's decision to cap the number of state licenses has led to a staggering number of administrative appeals — more than 800. A lawsuit aiming to overturn the cap heads to trial this fall. . . .
The Parson administration's choices of marijuana regulators also have been criticized for their political and industry connections. House lawmakers are looking into why Parson tapped former Republican state Rep. Lyndall Fraker — who has no prior medical experience — to head the medical marijuana unit. His administration then brought on Amy Moore as Fraker's deputy, after she served in various roles at the Missouri Public Service Commission. Moore’s husband is a lawyer who serves cannabis industry clients, which has drawn questions from lawmakers.
NOTE - latest poll on Missouri Governors Race
YouGov, June 23-July 1, 900 likely voters
Mike Parson (R-incumbent) 41%
Nicole Galloway (D) 38%
The end result under Johnson - close alignment - Soft Brexit.
Difference? Like you say, perceptions. Broadbrush perceptions are more important than substance and detail.
Johnson is seen as a proper Leaver - even better, THE proper Leaver - so Leavers are more likely to accept his Soft Brexit as proper Leave.
Boris's deal was different to May's in ways that mattered to leavers. That remainers didn't understand the difference is because they don't understand the detail that mattered.
Although, mind you, compare it with Stevenage, which is only about a dozen miles down the road, and the difference is quite stark. Even accounting for the fact that Luton is about twice the size, it's still doing vastly worse.
One of the other notable differences between the two is that Stevenage is a post-War new town. More evidence that these outbreaks *might* be exacerbated by lots of people being stuffed into rows of shitty little old terraced houses?
Also, maybe worth pointing out that Johnson isn't really a Leaver. Although as others have pointed out, he is very good at telling people what they want to hear, which works well with low information voters and the terminally gullible (the ERG). Eventually reality will intrude, but I am guessing he will be long gone by then, milking the speaker and junket circuit like a greedy man with a lot of child support to pay for.
Arguably Trumpsky's shill more than makes the grade.
Worst was Joe Kennedy by a mile.
Moreover, there is some dispute about how committed he was to Unionism as compared to what may be called Lloyd Georgism.
My school has advised all staff that if they go abroad at half term or Christmas and have to quarantine on their return that will be unauthorised leave and staff will not be paid.
Can’t blame them, tbh.
As for BEST American in this role, my vote is for Charles Francis Adams. NOT Mr Popularity in London, but did a damn fine job for US under VERY trying circumstances 1861-68. AND he lived long enough to see the Brits forced to pay for their perfidy re; the Alabama Claims
May's solution was insanely deciding to extend the solution the DUP objected to, to everyone! So everyone was screwed together.
Boris's solution was to go back to the solution the DUP objected to and to tweak it enough to get it through, by adding Stormont's consent to the mechanism.
Boris's solution was far, far superior. Screwing everybody was not the solution. May should have screwed the DUP instead - good for Boris for doing that.
*combination of central government and various levels of local government, NHS etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/24/our-slum-future-the-planning-shakeup-set-to-blight-british-housing
If some choose to pay nothing and lose it then great! That's what free choice is all about, why would you mourn that?
The common-or-garden private media companies are better than the BBC. If the BBC were better then people would lovingly sign up for it.
The reaction of the Lord Chamberlain was of course to ban it.
Unless you frequently rub your eyes against somebody else’s...
There is nothing the BBC does well anymore that isn't done equally well by others about its only real reason for being supported anymore was its neutrality and its pretty much thrown that out the window in favour of wokeism too.
The sooner the license fee is abolished the better.
In any case, water under the bridge and not what I was talking about. He's done that one. He's sold them on that. His challenge now is to sell the actual Brexit deal - close alignment - as proper Leave. And it will be a challenge. Not all the 52% are idiots.
He wasn't the British equivalent of a Quisling or a Mussert in that he ever actively supported Germany or Italy over Britain.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200526/can-you-catch-covid19-through-your-eyes
Probably more often via unwashed hands touching or rubbing eyes, but aerosol infection by that route is conceivable. I wear aerosol resistant safety specs at work.
Current LF settlement (CPI increases) runs from April 2017 to April 2021 inclusive.
But increases from April 2022 onwards are to be decided by Secretary of State - and note there is no vote in Parliament, no need to get a Bill through or any other obstacles.
In 2011, Cameron / Osborne imposed 6 year freeze (2011 to 2016), with BBC taking over funding World Service.
Then post GE 2015, they allowed CPI rises from 2017 to 2021 + BBC stops funding broadband + IPlayer loophole closed but BBC takes on over 75s funding (which in fact BBC will NOT now fund for most people).
So what will Boris do? Looks like no changes re over 75s, broadband, World Service - they have all now been tidied up.
With public spending cuts coming post Covid, Boris can surely at least go for another 6 year freeze (2022 to 2027). But does he dare go more radical? Say immediate10% cash cut and then freeze?
That would really shake things up given BBC is also now having to contend with falling LF sales (currently falling about 200,000 per year).
despite being elected as a Unionist, resigned the whip, joined the Labour Party, then set up its own Fascist movement before being interned under 18B.
Would nominateSir Lionel Sackville-West, who "served" 1881-88. During the 1888 presidential campaign, a Republican sent sir Lionel a letter under the assumed name "Charles F. Murchison" claiming to be a British immigrant to America, and asking HM's envoy for his advise on whom to vote for president.
Here is S-W's reply"
Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, and beg to say that I fully appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself in casting your vote.
You are probably aware that any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity, and that the party in power is fully aware of this fact. The party, however, is, I believe, still desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain, and is still as desirous of settling all questions with Canada which have been unfortunately re-opened since the retraction of the treaty[note 1] by the Republican majority in the Senate and by the President's message, to which you allude.
All allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation as regards the Presidential election thus created. It is, however, impossible to predict the course which President Cleveland may pursue in the matter of retaliation should he be elected, but there is every reason to believe that, while upholding the position he has taken, he will manifest a spirit of conciliation in dealing with the question involved in his message. I inclose an article from the New York Times of the 22d of August, and remain, yours, faithfully,
— L.S. Sackville West., Beverly, Mass., September 13, 1888
"Murchison" immediately gave Sir Lionel's reply to the press. With the result that S-W was soon packing his bags to return to England, his career as a diplomat ended forever.
BTW, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but lost in the Electoral College. And the Murchison Letter played a role by stoking anti-British sentiment against the Democrats and for the Republicans - just intended by "Murchison" and the GOP.
I think had you offered him his last twenty five years back in the late 70s/early 80s he wouldn't have believed it possible. An amazing, though quite upsetting, story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6GB_c6d_2U
In my town I am still seeing *many* more people on bikes than previously - like double or treble, albeit from a low base.
'(Cunninghame Graham) was a Liberal Party Member of Parliament (MP); the first ever socialist member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; a founder, and the first president, of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; and the first president of the Scottish National Party in 1934.'