One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Would you be happy/tolerate being part of an independent English state?
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
In dna surveys we are genetically distinct from those of devon, we have our own language , flag, anthem. The cornish regard ourselves very much as a nation within the uk. Just because we havent rebelled for a few hundred years doesn't make us english
It does in the sense that we can all have multiple identities and rub along fairly well. I hate to break this to you, but you're not only English, you're also British, United Kingdomish, and European. Not sure why a wonderful identity like being Cornish has to come at the expense of being English. Or (tangentially) why so many think identifying as Scottish means you have to reject Britishness.
It sometimes amuses me that if Scotland were to separate, everyone in Scotland would be every bit as British as they were before. Wonder if we gently told them that, they'd stop bothering with the whole cutting the country in half thing.
I am british and from the UK. I am not english not more than the scots are or the welsh are. We aren't mainly separatists but we have our own identity. Most of us think of ourselves of cornish then british then ukish we dont think of ourselves as english because we aren't simple as that
You have every right to prioritise your identities - it's just that geographically, Cornwall is part of England. But it's interesting to hear your thoughts on it.
I'm not sure when emoticons become emojis either but they're definitely called emojis by the young today
Emojis are there name, that's why. Emoticons are text only, emojis are the image.
:-) is an emoticon. 😀 is an emoji.
When I first started using them we called them smileys not emojis.
When I first started using them it was because we had 360bps modems and it made emails shorter which was why they were there. Kids today don't have that issue
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I agree completely with that. Starmer would have found it much harder against her. RLB was obviously a non-starters.
So speaks someone who has spent her every waking hour since 3rd April 2020 seeking to undermine the widely respected and genuinely popular leader of the party to which she notionally belongs.
The upside of all this is that I think there's a backlash coming from Labour members who would like to regard themselves on the left of the party but who are heartily sick and tired of the infantile factionalism of the likes of Pidcock and yearn for a degree of unity.
Labour Party supporters should thank their lucky stars that she lost her seat.
Wasn't Pidcock, not Wrong Daily, supposed to be the Corbynite standard bearer after Corbyn retired? Oops.
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
Possible she might have won. She would certainly have stood.
It would have been the end of the Labour party mind if she had won.
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I agree completely with that. Starmer would have found it much harder against her. RLB was obviously a non-starters.
Jeremy Corbyn and Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson both made plenty of mistakes but agreeing to an early election it is hard to call one. To be honest they were in a bit of a Checkmate position on that - they'd been backed into a corner and they had no real choice but to either accept Boris's deal and have Brexit proceed - or agree to an early election and seek to win it.
There weren't any other viable options.
Corbyn lost his veto when Swinson and the SNP agreed to the early election.
Yes, he had no choice at that stage. As useless as he was he really had no choice but to go with it. Corbyn was a poor leader for labour but Swinson has to be the most inept leader of a major party in modern times. Terrible judgement.
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I agree completely with that. Starmer would have found it much harder against her. RLB was obviously a non-starters.
Thank you the voters of NW Durham
Laura pidcock was a disaster waiting to happen
Will she be back though? Lavery off to the Lords in snap by-election?
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I agree completely with that. Starmer would have found it much harder against her. RLB was obviously a non-starters.
Thank you the voters of NW Durham
Laura pidcock was a disaster waiting to happen
Will she be back though? Lavery off to the Lords in snap by-election?
It wouldnt surprise me, frankly I hope starmer will avoid that
I'm not sure when emoticons become emojis either but they're definitely called emojis by the young today
Emojis are there name, that's why. Emoticons are text only, emojis are the image.
:-) is an emoticon. 😀 is an emoji.
When I first started using them we called them smileys not emojis.
When I first started using them it was because we had 360bps modems and it made emails shorter which was why they were there. Kids today don't have that issue
I've generally used them because when you're online you can't see the face of the other people you're talking to which means that things like sarcasm or wit can be taken the wrong way by people who think you're talking literally. Putting an 😉 next to something that is a joke makes it clear you're not being serious.
I use emojis a lot less here than I would on any other site. Probably because this site is dominated by people much older than I am who don't use it so I don't often in comparison either. They are a fantastic means of short communication at expressing emotions without long text.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the dominant future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
I'm not sure when emoticons become emojis either but they're definitely called emojis by the young today
Emojis are there name, that's why. Emoticons are text only, emojis are the image.
:-) is an emoticon. 😀 is an emoji.
When I first started using them we called them smileys not emojis.
When I first started using them it was because we had 360bps modems and it made emails shorter which was why they were there. Kids today don't have that issue
I've generally used them because when you're online you can't see the face of the other people you're talking to which means that things like sarcasm or wit can be taken the wrong way by people who think you're talking literally. Putting an 😉 next to something that is a joke makes it clear you're not being serious.
I use emojis a lot less here than I would on any other site. Probably because this site is dominated by people much older than I am who don't use it so I don't often in comparison either. They are a fantastic means of short communication at expressing emotions without long text.
I dont deny they are a good means of communication and even here I have found posts I made taken the wrong way but then I am used to that with text communication. It is why I most online stuff I do voice communication as it gives more emotive info.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
Shrugs dont care, the cornish feel we are a separate nation what you feel doesnt matter
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
My point exactly, I still speak cornish. Its not english. I obviously speak english as well as a second language
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produced the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great and certainly by 924 when Athelstan was proclaimed the first official King of the English
Cornwall - England's First Victim
Of course wasn't Alfred's grandfather a kernewek penvyghternet (or visa versa)?
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's so tmething quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
Shrugs dont care, the cornish feel we are a separate nation what you feel doesnt matter
The Scots legally are a different country, you're not. That's one technical difference.
But if you vote that you should be, then you should be. That's not the case yet though.
There's only three legal countries in the UK: England, Scotland and Wales*
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produced the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great and certainly by 924 when Athelstan was proclaimed the first official King of the English
Cornwall - England's First Victim
Of course wasn't Alfred's grandfather a kernewek penvyghternet (or visa versa)?
There was no England when Wessex defeated a Cornish and Danish army
Lib Dem revival in the SW on the cards? Or are they doomed
It's hard to be sure, but at this stage they look more likely to be doomed. Or, at the very least, to remain moribund for a very long time. They have, of course, endured three dreadful General Elections on the bounce and only managed to get their vote share back above 10% in the most recent one with the help of hardline Remainerism, which is now defunct.
Looking specifically at the South-West, there are almost no Liberal Democrat targets left there in any event. Here's a list:
Cheltenham (target number 5) Tory majority 981, swing required 0.83%
St Ives (target number 13) Tory majority 4,280, swing required 4.16%
Wells (target number 20) Tory majority 9,991, swing required 8.11%
Chippenham (target number 29) Tory majority 11,288, swing required 9.88%
Of those, Cheltenham and Chippenham are both in the statistical region of the South West but it's at least arguable that they're really in the South Midlands. All the LD targets in the South West below Chippenham have even larger Conservative majorities and require swings in excess of 11.5% to capture.
If the Liberal Democrats are going to stage any sort of a comeback at the next GE then they would be best off forgetting about Eurosceptic parts in the deep sticks, and concentrate instead mainly on seats full of Camerosborne Tory-type voters who are socially wet but fiscally dry, inhabiting the more upmarket bits of West London, the Home Counties and Cheshire. That covers the bulk of their top 20 targets.
This, of course, probably means that they will elect Layla Moran and try to move to the left of Labour.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Yes it does matter, England is defined as the Kingdoms which went into its creation ie Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produced the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great and certainly by 924 when Athelstan was proclaimed the first official King of the English
Cornwall - England's First Victim
Of course wasn't Alfred's grandfather a kernewek penvyghternet (or visa versa)?
There was a lot of intermingling at the time so quite possibly. Nations secured their sovereignty by marriage
I can only trace my ancestors to 1497 where there is record of them being executed when they marched on london with michael an gof.
You sure? Seems a good poll overall for Biden (+10 and lots of subsidiary gains) - seems unlikely he's -10 with indies?
Seems extremely unlikely.
I think CHB is passing on a genuine table but it's almost certainly back to front.
Some remarkable findings for the Republican voters. They feel the virus is both exagerrated and being well-handled, and the economy is in great shape. A different planet.
In physiognomy the Cornish are one of the most distinct peoples of the UK. They tend to look extremely different from people in East Anglia or Sussex, for instance, as much so, or even more so, than people from Wales. The genetic data also points to them being almost as different as the Welsh.
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I agree completely with that. Starmer would have found it much harder against her. RLB was obviously a non-starters.
Thank you the voters of NW Durham
Is this the first time we have ever agreed @MikeSmithson?
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
Which young people are they talking to? I have not spoken to a single young person in my life who finds them intimidating, what a load of utter nonsense
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Yes it does matter, England is defined as the Kingdoms which went into its creation ie Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
I'm not sure that arguing about the deep history of England really gets us anywhere at all.
Though FWIW Alfred the Great was not the first King of England. That was Athelstan.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Yes it does matter, England is defined as the Kingdoms which went into its creation ie Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
I'm not sure that arguing about the deep history of England really gets us anywhere at all.
Though FWIW Alfred the Great was not the first King of England. That was Athelstan.
No but the claims of a conqueror dont amount to a whole of a hill of beans these day. Yes the english conquered us. We dont wish separation just recognition
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
Yes, son concurs that a full stop, specifically in a text or chat message, is "there for a reason" and is equivalent to ending a verbal sentence with the word "period". But Mum, "doesn't count" as she writes texts like formal letters, anyway.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Yes it does matter, England is defined as the Kingdoms which went into its creation ie Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
I'm not sure that arguing about the deep history of England really gets us anywhere at all.
Though FWIW Alfred the Great was not the first King of England. That was Athelstan.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Frankly I couldn't give a toss what the subject is, I think HYUFD is nuts but at least he doesn't swear and shout at people and go off on one.
Then has the arrogance to pretend he's a goody too shoes who never did anything to provoke anyone.
The user in question is rude and objectionable and the kind of person I would hope never to meet in real life. It is astonishing they have got through life behaving in this way and not surprising when it gets called out, they get angry.
They're a bully, end of story. And I'm fed up with it.
I swear and shout at people a lot less than you do CHB
I think you should apologise for your behaviour this evening.
I agree, I just clapped the other post but that was because I hadn't seen the sweary other post.
There's no justification to swear at people and it just undermines the good points made in other posts.
yes probably shouldn't have sworn but sometimes you just react when someone doubles down. I don't despite CHB's claims swear very often on here
I`m enjoying the kerfuffle between you guys and reflecting that it was Malcy who threw the original obnoxious hand grenade. He must be having a good old chuckle.
HYUFD - you shouldn`t have take the bait.
Stocky , he is such a divvy. His sanctimonious right wing Pinochet opinions stink and he needs called out as often as possible.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
That is certainly true, although such a feeling seemingly being more of a modern rediscovery than historically persistent is worthy of note at least.
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
Which young people are they talking to? I have not spoken to a single young person in my life who finds them intimidating, what a load of utter nonsense
I think it's just part of today's general trend of utterly infantilising young people but treating them like fragile idiots, even as the 'think of the children and young people' tendency remains higher than it has ever been.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
None? Sounds incredibly implausible, or else politics in the penninsula would be very very different to what it is and has been.
Yes none is an exaggeration we do have immigrants. Most cornish born and bred though are immensely proud of being cornish not english. That doesn't mean they want to be separate merely they are cornish then british. The view that cornwall was part of england is something very much put forward by the english not the cornish.
Cornwall has always been quite different politically which is why we had so many lib dem mps when the rest of the country didnt. It is only post brexit we stopped electing them
Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex after the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 and then was part of England from 886 when the House of Wessex produce the first King of the whole of England, Alfred the Great
Your point is? The scots and welsh both got conquered by english kings too. You want to tell them they cant be a nation on those bounds?
Cornwall was part of England from its creation in the 9th century. Wessex may have conquered Cornwall but Wessex was not England, just the largest future component of it.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
None of which matters since nobody alive today was born in the 10th to 18th centuries.
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Yes it does matter, England is defined as the Kingdoms which went into its creation ie Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
I'm not sure that arguing about the deep history of England really gets us anywhere at all.
Though FWIW Alfred the Great was not the first King of England. That was Athelstan.
No but the claims of a conqueror dont amount to a whole of a hill of beans these day. Yes the english conquered us. We dont wish separation just recognition
The English did not conquer you, the Kingdom of Wessex did. England was only created after you were conquered and not just from Wessex, there was no England to conquer you before
Step back from your keyboards and drink a cup of tea. Slowly.
I don't drink tea but will have a bovril
Does that mean it is only half time?
No idea I don't follow football which is what I assume you are alluding to
Footie fans ritually drink Bovril and hot water at half time, while eating a meat pie. The main Scots footie discussion board is called 'Pie and Bovril'.
Ah well I tend to drink bovril because it doesn't contain caffeine
In useless Sunday information - it was invented in a wee place south of Edinburgh called Roslin. Allegedly famous for its chapel and Da Vinci horse manure [sold in a local farm]. But we know better.
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
I fancy that a lot of their votes were 'none of the above' rather than a positive support for their policies.
And besides, Yorkshire is as separate from England as Cornwall is. The most parochial part of the country I've ever experienced.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
There's been markedly little enthusiasm on the part of anyone in authority to endorse any kind of national vision for England. One of the things I think some Scots understand little is the extent to which their sense of nationality is actively supported and nurtured and has been for decades. England isn't like that. And you can say that's because English nationalism is all lager louts and footie violence, and it's right that it isn't encouraged, but it's a circular argument. It's only celebrated by those at the fringes *because* it's never been encouraged elsewhere.
There's something quite beautiful about aspects of Englishness - though it is very bound up in Britishness. Things like pubs with horse brasses, cricket, Sandy Denny etc.
Its very true and I say that as a non english person. The english have always been derided for celebrating their nation. From Thornberry's contempt for someone flying england flags to the utter despising of celebrating st Georges day. As a cornish person I have never been derided for displaying my flag no celebrating that which makes us different and I feel I can be both cornish and part of the uk.
Er... If you're Cornish, you are surely English.
Well the english think so, I dont know any cornish people that do.
In dna surveys we are genetically distinct from those of devon, we have our own language , flag, anthem. The cornish regard ourselves very much as a nation within the uk. Just because we havent rebelled for a few hundred years doesn't make us english
It does in the sense that we can all have multiple identities and rub along fairly well. I hate to break this to you, but you're not only English, you're also British, United Kingdomish, and European. Not sure why a wonderful identity like being Cornish has to come at the expense of being English. Or (tangentially) why so many think identifying as Scottish means you have to reject Britishness.
It sometimes amuses me that if Scotland were to separate, everyone in Scotland would be every bit as British as they were before. Wonder if we gently told them that, they'd stop bothering with the whole cutting the country in half thing.
I'm not sure when emoticons become emojis either but they're definitely called emojis by the young today
Emojis are there name, that's why. Emoticons are text only, emojis are the image.
:-) is an emoticon. 😀 is an emoji.
When I first started using them we called them smileys not emojis.
When I first started using them it was because we had 360bps modems and it made emails shorter which was why they were there. Kids today don't have that issue
Ah hem.
It was 300bps modems. You normally had the choice of 300/300 or an aysmetrical rate (which I forget) where downstream was about 1,200 bps and upstream was about 75 bps.
Ahhh... I still remember all the Hayes dial commands, and used to use them when connecting laptops to phones to get Internet connections...
And Trump already has his acolytes saying that it won’t be a fair election if he doesn’t win,
https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/what-happens-if-donald-trump-fights-the-election-results ... These war games were hypothetical imaginings of extraordinary circumstances. But an election in a pandemic year with a President declaring in advance that the vote will be rigged are extraordinary circumstances. “One big takeaway is that leaders really need to know what exactly their powers are, and what the powers of others are, and think through some of these options in advance,” Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University who helped convene the Transition Integrity Project, told me recently. “Because if things go bad, they’ll go bad very quickly, and people will have to make decisions in an hour, not in a week.”...
... As he has in other areas of American self-government, Trump has revealed how much of our democracy rests on norms rather than enforceable laws. Ultimately, the one norm that has been crucial to the resolution of past disputes is the one that Trump is perhaps least likely to observe: conceding defeat. In 1876, Tilden, from the start of the crisis, was privately prepared to concede and ultimately did so. And while the Supreme Court is popularly remembered as the decisive actor that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush, it was Al Gore’s decision to concede, and to not pursue additional legal options, that really ended matters. In November, if Trump loses and refuses to concede, he may live up to one of his favorite boasts. No one will have ever seen anything like it. When I asked the Trump campaign what preparations it was making for the possibility of counts coming in slowly, or being too close to call, on and after Election Day, Tim Murtaugh, Trump’s campaign communications director, told me in an e-mailed statement, “We don’t know what kind of shenanigans Democrats will try leading up to November. If someone had asked George W. Bush and Al Gore this same question in 2000, would they have been able to foresee the drawn out fight over Florida? The central point remains clear: in a free and fair election, President Trump will win.”
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
I fancy that a lot of their votes were 'none of the above' rather than a positive support for their policies.
And besides, Yorkshire is as separate from England as Cornwall is. The most parochial part of the country I've ever experienced.
Yorkshire is also part of England being part of the Kingdom of Northumbria which was one of the Kingdoms from which England was formed.
I would also point out Yorkshire was never a completely separate Kingdom unlike my county of birth, Kent and my county of residence, Essex
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
Which young people are they talking to? I have not spoken to a single young person in my life who finds them intimidating, what a load of utter nonsense
I think it's just part of today's general trend of utterly infantilising young people but treating them like fragile idiots, even as the 'think of the children and young people' tendency remains higher than it has ever been.
Yes but it's more dishonest reporting by the Telegraph which makes young people look like we're pathetic and victims. They make us look bad with this nonsense, all as part of their "they get offended at everything" angle.
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
Which young people are they talking to? I have not spoken to a single young person in my life who finds them intimidating, what a load of utter nonsense
I think it's just part of today's general trend of utterly infantilising young people but treating them like fragile idiots, even as the 'think of the children and young people' tendency remains higher than it has ever been.
Yes but it's more dishonest reporting by the Telegraph which makes young people look like we're pathetic and victims. They make us look bad with this nonsense, all as part of their "they get offended at everything" angle.
I am fed up with it
Clearly not that fed up, as you didn't end that sentence with a full stop.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Regionalism - as distinct from stronger local government - is an enormous problem in England, for several reasons:
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess. 2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians. 3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
Which young people are they talking to? I have not spoken to a single young person in my life who finds them intimidating, what a load of utter nonsense
I think it's just part of today's general trend of utterly infantilising young people but treating them like fragile idiots, even as the 'think of the children and young people' tendency remains higher than it has ever been.
Yes but it's more dishonest reporting by the Telegraph which makes young people look like we're pathetic and victims. They make us look bad with this nonsense, all as part of their "they get offended at everything" angle.
I am fed up with it
Clearly not that fed up, as you didn't end that sentence with a full stop.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Regionalism - as distinct from stronger local government - is an enormous problem in England, for several reasons:
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess. 2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians. 3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
This government has decided that 'city regions' are the way it wants to go.
So even when the majority of people in Yorkshire want an all-Yorkshire mayor we aren't allowed to have one.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Regionalism - as distinct from stronger local government - is an enormous problem in England, for several reasons:
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess. 2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians. 3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
This government has decided that 'city regions' are the way it wants to go.
So even when the majority of people in Yorkshire want an all-Yorkshire mayor we aren't allowed to have one.
You have mistaken politicians for people who give people what they want instead of what they want
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Regionalism - as distinct from stronger local government - is an enormous problem in England, for several reasons:
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess. 2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians. 3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
This government has decided that 'city regions' are the way it wants to go.
So even when the majority of people in Yorkshire want an all-Yorkshire mayor we aren't allowed to have one.
City Regions are also a mess - see “North of Tyne”.
One of the best policies Labour could do is federalism including an English Parliament. Basically no downside and they look more pro-English and patriotic.
I am surprised the Tories have not implemented it yet
Exactly. HYUFD is practicxally blaming me for it.
Would the scots support federalism with an english parliament though? We have heard several times that the disparity in size would be an issue.
So long as Scotland was completely autonomous, I don’t see why not.
Of course they may prefer full independence anyway, but gotta roll the dice.
But this is where Labour could really make a difference in terms of proposition. Hard against Independence, hard against the SNP but pro-federalism including for the English. It's a brilliant idea.
I am disappointed Starmer has not put more meat on the bones since the leadership campaign
I can't see how this would win a single vote in England. Not even with hand-wringers, never mind working class voters in the north.
Yet a party whose flagship policy is a regional assembly for Yorkshire has been doing quite well in seats where it stands. An average of over 1,000 votes in the 28 Yorkshire constituencies where it stood in the 2019 GE, to supplement 6 out of their 38 candidates being elected in the 2019 local elections. That suggests to me that in parts of England at least, including in working class seats up north, a desire for meaningful regional devolution is enough to persuade significant numbers to switch parties. I hope Starmer has taken note.
Regionalism - as distinct from stronger local government - is an enormous problem in England, for several reasons:
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess. 2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians. 3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
Westminster will never give regions power like scotland has. They will as you said merely talking shops for people like hyufd
@Black_Rook the problem is that some local councils need to be abolished first.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
@Black_Rook the problem is that some local councils need to be abolished first.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
Hold on a minute. Gateshead is part of County Durham. Not part of some 'Greater Newcastle'.
I'm not sure when emoticons become emojis either but they're definitely called emojis by the young today
Emojis are there name, that's why. Emoticons are text only, emojis are the image.
:-) is an emoticon. 😀 is an emoji.
When I first started using them we called them smileys not emojis.
When I first started using them it was because we had 360bps modems and it made emails shorter which was why they were there. Kids today don't have that issue
Ah hem.
It was 300bps modems. You normally had the choice of 300/300 or an aysmetrical rate (which I forget) where downstream was about 1,200 bps and upstream was about 75 bps.
Ahhh... I still remember all the Hayes dial commands, and used to use them when connecting laptops to phones to get Internet connections...
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
Is it worth making a story about? Again as I say the implication being that this is just yet another of young people being snowflakes? No, of course not
@Black_Rook the problem is that some local councils need to be abolished first.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
Hold on a minute. Gateshead is part of County Durham. Not part of some 'Greater Newcastle'.
Its Greater Newcastle whether you like it or not unfortunately.
It is and it isn't. To some people a full stop is equivalent to an exclamation mark.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The point it is making is nonsense.
The implication is that young "snowflakes" are worried about fullstops and find them offensive. We don't, we don't give a toss.
This is just the latest in a long line of nonsense culture war stories from the Telegraph
Of course we don't.
But language is evolving, I did have a conversation once with a young colleague who thought I was being curt with him as I'd ended my text in a full stop. I'm not making it up it really happened. There was other stuff going on as to why he thought it too but that's literally what he said, I then said he should look back through my messages and I always do. That's unusual, at the time in the environment I was working in I'd be as likely to get a text ending in an x than a full stop.
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
That’s because they are! It all comes down to the communication medium. There’s no need to put full stops on the end of digital messages because by virtue of the message being sent its clear a sentence is finished.
It is and it isn't. To some people a full stop is equivalent to an exclamation mark.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The point it is making is nonsense.
The implication is that young "snowflakes" are worried about fullstops and find them offensive. We don't, we don't give a toss.
This is just the latest in a long line of nonsense culture war stories from the Telegraph
Of course we don't.
But language is evolving, I did have a conversation once with a young colleague who thought I was being curt with him as I'd ended my text in a full stop. I'm not making it up it really happened. There was other stuff going on as to why he thought it too but that's literally what he said, I then said he should look back through my messages and I always do. That's unusual, at the time in the environment I was working in I'd be as likely to get a text ending in an x than a full stop.
Language is evolving isn't what my issue is with, it's with the Telegraph making out this is yet another snowflake, culture war issue
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
That’s because they are! It all comes down to the communication medium. There’s no need to put full stops on the end of digital messages because by virtue of the message being sent its clear a sentence is finished.
I suspect at one time full stops were not added to save on memory, or due to limitations in the amount of text you could fit in a single message
It is and it isn't. To some people a full stop is equivalent to an exclamation mark.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The point it is making is nonsense.
The implication is that young "snowflakes" are worried about fullstops and find them offensive. We don't, we don't give a toss.
This is just the latest in a long line of nonsense culture war stories from the Telegraph
Of course we don't.
But language is evolving, I did have a conversation once with a young colleague who thought I was being curt with him as I'd ended my text in a full stop. I'm not making it up it really happened. There was other stuff going on as to why he thought it too but that's literally what he said, I then said he should look back through my messages and I always do. That's unusual, at the time in the environment I was working in I'd be as likely to get a text ending in an x than a full stop.
Language is evolving isn't what my issue is with, it's with the Telegraph making out this is yet another snowflake, culture war issue
get the same in my job, pal, a full stop tells them that the discussion is over.
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
Is it worth making a story about? Again as I say the implication being that this is just yet another of young people being snowflakes? No, of course not
Clickbait.
As far as linguists and academics are concerned the evolution of language is fascinating. Language, spelling and grammar have changed in the past and now they are rapidly changing with the addition of emoji and an array of acronyms etc as a modern part of our language. Heck in 2015 😂 was "word of the year".
@Black_Rook the problem is that some local councils need to be abolished first.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
Hold on a minute. Gateshead is part of County Durham. Not part of some 'Greater Newcastle'.
Its Greater Newcastle whether you like it or not unfortunately.
I'll be manning the barricades on the Redheugh Bridge. The Heed will not be subjugated!
@Black_Rook the problem is that some local councils need to be abolished first.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
There are a lot of legacy issues that have built up over the last half-century, to be sure.
I would've thought myself that the best solution would be mass unitarisation, plus a lightweight mayor and assembly model for Greater London, Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester. It'd be a chance simply to erase the last vestiges of the 1974 reforms, fit the revised boundaries either to the historic county map or to those suggested by the current limits of major urban areas, and to equalise the powers and responsibilities of councils and thus make them clearer and simpler for voters to understand which level of Government does what.
All sorts of services - police, fire, NHS trusts and CCGs, and so on - could then be matched to the boundaries of local authorities or groups of local authorities, and placed under the oversight of locally rather than nationally elected politicians to the extent deemed appropriate. Smaller cities and any towns that wanted them could also elect mayors as civic figureheads, but with limited powers.
The current muddy hodgepodge of districts, counties, unitaries and city regions with wildly differing sizes and suites of powers does nobody any favours.
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
That’s because they are! It all comes down to the communication medium. There’s no need to put full stops on the end of digital messages because by virtue of the message being sent its clear a sentence is finished.
I suspect at one time full stops were not added to save on memory, or due to limitations in the amount of text you could fit in a single message
Or because people didn't want to press the 0 button repeatedly for a character that didn't express any needed meaning. Same reason pre predictive text and QWERTY keyboards on phones ppl wld tlk like this n drp vwls n lttrs that cld b dn without. B 1337.
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
That’s because they are! It all comes down to the communication medium. There’s no need to put full stops on the end of digital messages because by virtue of the message being sent its clear a sentence is finished.
I suspect at one time full stops were not added to save on memory, or due to limitations in the amount of text you could fit in a single message
Or because people didn't want to press the 0 button repeatedly for a character that didn't express any needed meaning. Same reason pre predictive text and QWERTY keyboards on phones ppl wld tlk like this n drp vwls n lttrs that cld b dn without. B 1337.
No actual young person is calling fullstops offensive, yet the Telegraph is happy for their readers to think so, it's not a good look
Offensive no definitely not but I have spoken to people who find texts ending in a full stop to be passive aggressive.
That’s because they are! It all comes down to the communication medium. There’s no need to put full stops on the end of digital messages because by virtue of the message being sent its clear a sentence is finished.
I suspect at one time full stops were not added to save on memory, or due to limitations in the amount of text you could fit in a single message
Or because people didn't want to press the 0 button repeatedly for a character that didn't express any needed meaning. Same reason pre predictive text and QWERTY keyboards on phones ppl wld tlk like this n drp vwls n lttrs that cld b dn without. B 1337.
It is and it isn't. To some people a full stop is equivalent to an exclamation mark.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The lack of visual information makes people more sensitive to details. If you often correspond with someone you get used to their style, but you may then look for consistency and wonder about the meaning of its absence. I remember one friend always signing messages with x and one day not doing so - I did worry a bit that I'd offended her.
I wonder if that sort of thing is more of an issue with lockdown, because potentially you don't see them at all to iron out any misunderstandings?
What niche can the Lib Dems calve out? They've lost the centre-left one surely with Starmer.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
The problem with the Lib Dems isn't the voters, it's the members.
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
It is and it isn't. To some people a full stop is equivalent to an exclamation mark.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The lack of visual information makes people more sensitive to details. If you often correspond with someone you get used to their style, but you may then look for consistency and wonder about the meaning of its absence. I remember one friend always signing messages with x and one day not doing so - I did worry a bit that I'd offended her.
I wonder if that sort of thing is more of an issue with lockdown, because potentially you don't see them at all to iron out any misunderstandings?
Very true.
About a decade ago my boss at the time once signed a text to me with an x. I replied quizzically bemused about it, he said it was force of habit, he replied to most people with them and didn't to me because I didn't use them. That one had slipped through out of habit.
What niche can the Lib Dems calve out? They've lost the centre-left one surely with Starmer.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
The problem with the Lib Dems isn't the voters, it's the members.
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
A lot depends on the LD leadership result at the end of the month, if LD members pick Davey they are clearly making a move for soft Tories, if they pick Moran they are sticking in their centre-left comfort zone
What niche can the Lib Dems calve out? They've lost the centre-left one surely with Starmer.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
The problem with the Lib Dems isn't the voters, it's the members.
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
A lot depends on the LD leadership result at the end of the month, if LD members pick Davey they are clearly making a move for soft Tories, if they pick Moran they are sticking in their centre-left comfort zone
Should be interesting to see what happens. My gut feeling is that Davey will win by 55% to 45% but there's no way of knowing for sure.
Comments
Anyway, school night - night all.
Thank you the voters of NW Durham
Wasn't Pidcock, not Wrong Daily, supposed to be the Corbynite standard bearer after Corbyn retired? Oops.
It would have been the end of the Labour party mind if she had won.
Trump is desperate.
I'm very forgiving of a loose approach to rules of grammar and syntax, within reason, but that headline is just barmy.
I use emojis a lot less here than I would on any other site. Probably because this site is dominated by people much older than I am who don't use it so I don't often in comparison either. They are a fantastic means of short communication at expressing emotions without long text.
Wales was conquered by England in the 13th century by Edward 1st who made his son Prince of Wales centuries after England was created and officially united with England by the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII in the 16th century.
Scotland was not united with England until 1707 and did not share a monarch with England until James 1st
All that matters is what people alive today think.
Totally bonkers. Period.
Of course wasn't Alfred's grandfather a kernewek penvyghternet (or visa versa)?
But if you vote that you should be, then you should be. That's not the case yet though.
There's only three legal countries in the UK: England, Scotland and Wales*
* No its not a principality.
Looking specifically at the South-West, there are almost no Liberal Democrat targets left there in any event. Here's a list:
Cheltenham (target number 5)
Tory majority 981, swing required 0.83%
St Ives (target number 13)
Tory majority 4,280, swing required 4.16%
Wells (target number 20)
Tory majority 9,991, swing required 8.11%
Taunton Deane (target number 27)
Tory majority 11,700, swing required 9.18%
Chippenham (target number 29)
Tory majority 11,288, swing required 9.88%
Of those, Cheltenham and Chippenham are both in the statistical region of the South West but it's at least arguable that they're really in the South Midlands. All the LD targets in the South West below Chippenham have even larger Conservative majorities and require swings in excess of 11.5% to capture.
If the Liberal Democrats are going to stage any sort of a comeback at the next GE then they would be best off forgetting about Eurosceptic parts in the deep sticks, and concentrate instead mainly on seats full of Camerosborne Tory-type voters who are socially wet but fiscally dry, inhabiting the more upmarket bits of West London, the Home Counties and Cheshire. That covers the bulk of their top 20 targets.
This, of course, probably means that they will elect Layla Moran and try to move to the left of Labour.
If you live in any of the areas that were in the Kingdoms above then by definition you are English. What you want for the future is a different matter
I can only trace my ancestors to 1497 where there is record of them being executed when they marched on london with michael an gof.
Some remarkable findings for the Republican voters. They feel the virus is both exagerrated and being well-handled, and the economy is in great shape. A different planet.
Though FWIW Alfred the Great was not the first King of England. That was Athelstan.
Yes, son concurs that a full stop, specifically in a text or chat message, is "there for a reason" and is equivalent to ending a verbal sentence with the word "period". But Mum, "doesn't count" as she writes texts like formal letters, anyway.
This is such a bullshit story.
And besides, Yorkshire is as separate from England as Cornwall is. The most parochial part of the country I've ever experienced.
It was 300bps modems. You normally had the choice of 300/300 or an aysmetrical rate (which I forget) where downstream was about 1,200 bps and upstream was about 75 bps.
Ahhh... I still remember all the Hayes dial commands, and used to use them when connecting laptops to phones to get Internet connections...
And Trump already has his acolytes saying that it won’t be a fair election if he doesn’t win,
https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/what-happens-if-donald-trump-fights-the-election-results
... These war games were hypothetical imaginings of extraordinary circumstances. But an election in a pandemic year with a President declaring in advance that the vote will be rigged are extraordinary circumstances. “One big takeaway is that leaders really need to know what exactly their powers are, and what the powers of others are, and think through some of these options in advance,” Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University who helped convene the Transition Integrity Project, told me recently. “Because if things go bad, they’ll go bad very quickly, and people will have to make decisions in an hour, not in a week.”...
... As he has in other areas of American self-government, Trump has revealed how much of our democracy rests on norms rather than enforceable laws. Ultimately, the one norm that has been crucial to the resolution of past disputes is the one that Trump is perhaps least likely to observe: conceding defeat. In 1876, Tilden, from the start of the crisis, was privately prepared to concede and ultimately did so. And while the Supreme Court is popularly remembered as the decisive actor that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush, it was Al Gore’s decision to concede, and to not pursue additional legal options, that really ended matters. In November, if Trump loses and refuses to concede, he may live up to one of his favorite boasts. No one will have ever seen anything like it. When I asked the Trump campaign what preparations it was making for the possibility of counts coming in slowly, or being too close to call, on and after Election Day, Tim Murtaugh, Trump’s campaign communications director, told me in an e-mailed statement, “We don’t know what kind of shenanigans Democrats will try leading up to November. If someone had asked George W. Bush and Al Gore this same question in 2000, would they have been able to foresee the drawn out fight over Florida? The central point remains clear: in a free and fair election, President Trump will win.”
I would also point out Yorkshire was never a completely separate Kingdom unlike my county of birth, Kent and my county of residence, Essex
I am fed up with it
1. The only obvious regions of sufficient size that offer themselves for creation are Greater London and Yorkshire (and even in the latter case it has had bits chopped off it by successive local government reforms, so would presumably need to be reconstituted properly.) The rest of them are all artificial. For example, where do we put Hertfordshire? In the South East, the East of England, the South Midlands, the South-East Midlands, the East Midlands, West Anglia or the Northern Home Counties? It's a mess.
2. The previous experience with the failed North-East Assembly suggests that there is little appetite for paper-shuffling, talking-shop provincial assemblies that do little apart from providing yet another layer of government with lots of well-paid sinecures for pensioned-off and third-rate politicians.
3. Alternatively, it has been suggested that powerful devolved provinces could be created, with legislative and administrative powers comparable to those of Scotland and Wales. This, however, leaves problem 1 and aspects of problem 2 unresolved, and also makes the heroic assumption both that the English want their country Balkanised into a collection of cantons, and that it is desirable to end up with a patchwork quilt of little regions all with separate sets of public services and different laws.
.
..
.
.
.
So even when the majority of people in Yorkshire want an all-Yorkshire mayor we aren't allowed to have one.
Take the mess that was “Tyne and Wear” that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. This has been repeated with the now named “North of Tyne” city region, where Gateshead and South Tyneside councils refused to join to protect their own fiefdoms.
One “city” essentially has 6 local authorities - Northumberland CC, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and “North of Tyne”.
Its simple - overrule the local authorities, hive Sunderland back into County Durham, keep Northumberland CC, and redraw the boundaries so the whole of Tyndeside accurately reflects its status as “Greater Newcastle”.
Then again to some people not ending a message with an x kiss is passive aggressive too.
The implication is that young "snowflakes" are worried about fullstops and find them offensive. We don't, we don't give a toss.
This is just the latest in a long line of nonsense culture war stories from the Telegraph
Quite balanced, I'd say
But language is evolving, I did have a conversation once with a young colleague who thought I was being curt with him as I'd ended my text in a full stop. I'm not making it up it really happened. There was other stuff going on as to why he thought it too but that's literally what he said, I then said he should look back through my messages and I always do. That's unusual, at the time in the environment I was working in I'd be as likely to get a text ending in an x than a full stop.
.
.
As far as linguists and academics are concerned the evolution of language is fascinating. Language, spelling and grammar have changed in the past and now they are rapidly changing with the addition of emoji and an array of acronyms etc as a modern part of our language. Heck in 2015 😂 was "word of the year".
But for the Telegraph I suspect it is clickbait.
Night all.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
I would've thought myself that the best solution would be mass unitarisation, plus a lightweight mayor and assembly model for Greater London, Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester. It'd be a chance simply to erase the last vestiges of the 1974 reforms, fit the revised boundaries either to the historic county map or to those suggested by the current limits of major urban areas, and to equalise the powers and responsibilities of councils and thus make them clearer and simpler for voters to understand which level of Government does what.
All sorts of services - police, fire, NHS trusts and CCGs, and so on - could then be matched to the boundaries of local authorities or groups of local authorities, and placed under the oversight of locally rather than nationally elected politicians to the extent deemed appropriate. Smaller cities and any towns that wanted them could also elect mayors as civic figureheads, but with limited powers.
The current muddy hodgepodge of districts, counties, unitaries and city regions with wildly differing sizes and suites of powers does nobody any favours.
I wonder if that sort of thing is more of an issue with lockdown, because potentially you don't see them at all to iron out any misunderstandings?
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
On which note, I need to get to bed or will be useless for work in the morning. Au revoir.
About a decade ago my boss at the time once signed a text to me with an x. I replied quizzically bemused about it, he said it was force of habit, he replied to most people with them and didn't to me because I didn't use them. That one had slipped through out of habit.
He is going to dye another day.
Goodnight.
https://twitter.com/stephanievalenc/status/1297602616491294725?s=21