The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Actually Thomas Arne's opera Alfred, containing the Rule Britannia aria and chorus, would make a good Prom of the kind that only Radio 3 listeners tune into.
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
Just to add BBC4 replayed the astonishing 2007 debut Of the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra last night: a concert that absolutely epitomised the spirit of the proms. Catch it on the i-player while you can.
Is it just me that feels uncomfortable with the concept of El Sistema? Venezuela is a basket case.
It seems to be a bit like the tours of the Bolshoi during the cold war. Trying to tell a story that just isn't true.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Actually Thomas Arne's opera Alfred, containing the Rule Britannia aria and chorus, would make a good Prom of the kind that only Radio 3 listeners tune into.
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
Ironically, one of Beethoven's most successful compositions (at the time) was a throw away ditty based on variations on Rule Britannia. He didn't like Napoleon. Perhaps they could play that?
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
Yes we'll see.
They have several hundred thousand people signed up and it's a question of offering those people something that sits well alongside the ride hailing or that can take the place of it. No idea whether Uber Eats, for example, is profitable. Or hook up with Ocado even for something or other.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Same thing. Allegedly Edward VII heard Pomp & Circumstance and told Elgar it would make a good tune for a song.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
Personally I support social housing, it is cheaper than housing benefit and EFDC is Tory run and building more social homes. Yes, I want most people to own their own homes but not everyone will be able to.
One of the reasons you are a libertarian and I am not
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
There is nothing unique about their proposition, they have some data (so do lots of companies) and it's pretty clear they don't have a clue what to do with it.
Their app is not unique, there are dozens of competitors that could build a similar thing. They might have popularised the idea of a taxi hailing app but they have no way to hold that as a unique proposition.
Tesla could get in, Google could get in. Then Uber is screwed.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
He is.
Och, I'd never noticed.
In other news - any thoughts on how thje going back to school is going in Scotland? The usual suspects haven't found much to tweet with glee, appropriate ot otherwise, though it's too early to know the effect on infection rates.
Well, so far the fact it hasn't been a complete disaster splashed across every news outlet is encouraging. I will want to see where we stand a week today though as if there's going to be a major spike from reopening schools, that's when we're going to see it.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Actually Thomas Arne's opera Alfred, containing the Rule Britannia aria and chorus, would make a good Prom of the kind that only Radio 3 listeners tune into.
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
No they aren't. Even if they were, it is now, now that the EU has converted it into a football chant. The effect is like having a reproduction of the Mona Lisa on every sheet of your toilet paper.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
Personally I support social housing, it is cheaper than housing benefit and EFDC is Tory run and building more social homes. Yes, I want most people to own their own homes but not everyone will be able to.
One of the reasons you are a libertarian and I am not
Housing benefit shouldn't be needed either.
We should have a universal basic income with no need for either social housing or housing benefit.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Same thing. Allegedly Edward VII heard Pomp & Circumstance and told Elgar it would make a good tune for a song.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
Rule Britannia was originally a poem co-written by the Scottish pre-Romantic poet and playwright, James Thomson (1700-48), and David Mallet (1703-1765)
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
You're only eligible to receive housing benefit if someone else lives in your property.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
Personally I support social housing, it is cheaper than housing benefit and EFDC is Tory run and building more social homes. Yes, I want most people to own their own homes but not everyone will be able to.
One of the reasons you are a libertarian and I am not
Housing benefit shouldn't be needed either.
We should have a universal basic income with no need for either social housing or housing benefit.
Which still would not provide the security for those on the lowest incomes of social housing while also being extremely costly to fund
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
Yes we'll see.
They have several hundred thousand people signed up and it's a question of offering those people something that sits well alongside the ride hailing or that can take the place of it. No idea whether Uber Eats, for example, is profitable. Or hook up with Ocado even for something or other.
FMCG entrepreneur I am not!
Doesn't Uber lose so much money because of Uber Eats? I am sure Uber Eats is really a terrible proposition that can never make any money.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Same thing. Allegedly Edward VII heard Pomp & Circumstance and told Elgar it would make a good tune for a song.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
I wouldn't say the life of Colston was inoffensive.
What I do say is that (a) criminal damage is criminal damage and (b) as it was torn down by a mob of almost exclusively white racists I think we should assume there were other things than slavery in their minds at the time.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
You're only eligible to receive housing benefit if someone else lives in your property.
Precisely, the whole thing is a mess and should be done away with. If people can't afford their own home then telling them to go into someone else's isn't a solution. If people are going through a rough patch then telling them to sell up or leave their home and move into social housing isn't a solution.
I support a clean, simply universal basic income aka a negative income tax. People should have their own money and be free to live where suits them with that - the government shouldn't have any say in where people live. Ensuring people can pay for their own home is better than any alternative.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the income/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
Yes we'll see.
They have several hundred thousand people signed up and it's a question of offering those people something that sits well alongside the ride hailing or that can take the place of it. No idea whether Uber Eats, for example, is profitable. Or hook up with Ocado even for something or other.
FMCG entrepreneur I am not!
Doesn't Uber lose so much money because of Uber Eats? I am sure Uber Eats is really a terrible proposition that can never make any money.
Well, as I said, I am not up with the latest FMCG technology but Ocado I know was marked down for years before they signed the various distribution deals, having established a network of customers and drivers. After which everyone said: "oh well it was obvious".
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Same thing. Allegedly Edward VII heard Pomp & Circumstance and told Elgar it would make a good tune for a song.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
I wouldn't say the life of Colston was inoffensive.
What I do say is that (a) criminal damage is criminal damage and (b) as it was torn down by a mob of almost exclusively white racists I think we should assume there were other things than slavery in their minds at the time.
I had two relativelys in the one sentence so edited one of them out. Colston spent the proceeds of his career on good works, which puts him streets ahead of most slave traders.
But my point was why wouyldn't the same white racists try to storm the Albert Hall on tlnotp? Perhaps they will.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
You're only eligible to receive housing benefit if someone else lives in your property.
Precisely, the whole thing is a mess and should be done away with. If people can't afford their own home then telling them to go into someone else's isn't a solution. If people are going through a rough patch then telling them to sell up or leave their home and move into social housing isn't a solution.
I support a clean, simply universal basic income aka a negative income tax. People should have their own money and be free to live where suits them with that - the government shouldn't have any say in where people live. Ensuring people can pay for their own home is better than any alternative.
Agree re universal income. Although this is often a left of centre policy I first became aware of it from a right wing think tank in the early 90s.
It could be used to get rid of many benefits, which become redundant. Income tax would be implemented from the first pound earned after the universal income and be progressive so the financial impact is neutral. It could even be used to replace basic maternity leave and sick pay, even state pension and student maintenance loans as well as unemployment benefit.
The DWP could be reduced to a fraction of its size.
It also eliminates the issue of those not claiming benefits who are entitled to them and those fiddling the system.
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
Yes we'll see.
They have several hundred thousand people signed up and it's a question of offering those people something that sits well alongside the ride hailing or that can take the place of it. No idea whether Uber Eats, for example, is profitable. Or hook up with Ocado even for something or other.
FMCG entrepreneur I am not!
Doesn't Uber lose so much money because of Uber Eats? I am sure Uber Eats is really a terrible proposition that can never make any money.
Well, as I said, I am not up with the latest FMCG technology but Ocado I know was marked down for years before they signed the various distribution deals, having established a network of customers and drivers. After which everyone said: "oh well it was obvious".
I just don't know how Uber could do that, there is no established network of taxi companies that can't easily copy a ride hailing app. In fact Uber is quite far behind the times on monetisation, Grab is much more sophisticated than Uber and if they enter the NA/European market Uber is done for.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Same thing. Allegedly Edward VII heard Pomp & Circumstance and told Elgar it would make a good tune for a song.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833. Abolitionists seized on the words of this as one example of its inconsistency in applying to all Britons in the late 18th Century.
The original words as written were a reference to the relevant tyranny of autocratic rule in France and Spain at the time, with whom Britain was often in conflict, and exulting the freedoms that Britons experienced by contrast and its dependence on its navy to protect them.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Actually Thomas Arne's opera Alfred, containing the Rule Britannia aria and chorus, would make a good Prom of the kind that only Radio 3 listeners tune into.
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
No they aren't. Even if they were, it is now, now that the EU has converted it into a football chant. The effect is like having a reproduction of the Mona Lisa on every sheet of your toilet paper.
It is as unfair to blame Beethoven for the EU as to blame that other genius, Da Vinci, for toilet paper. You do need take the time to listen to the whole thing - it is very multi-layered. I guess we will have to have different views on this.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Who's saying you're not allowed to 'do' anything? We're having a political debate involving a difference of opinion. Neither of us has done anything wrong. Try chilling out and enjoying sharpening your own views rather than crying foul when someone disagrees strongly with what you're saying.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
You're only eligible to receive housing benefit if someone else lives in your property.
Precisely, the whole thing is a mess and should be done away with. If people can't afford their own home then telling them to go into someone else's isn't a solution. If people are going through a rough patch then telling them to sell up or leave their home and move into social housing isn't a solution.
I support a clean, simply universal basic income aka a negative income tax. People should have their own money and be free to live where suits them with that - the government shouldn't have any say in where people live. Ensuring people can pay for their own home is better than any alternative.
Agree re universal income. Although this is often a left of centre policy I first became aware of it from a right wing think tank in the early 90s.
It could be used to get rid of many benefits, which become redundant. Income tax would be implemented from the first pound earned after the universal income and be progressive so the financial impact is neutral. It could even be used to replace basic maternity leave and sick pay, even state pension and student maintenance loans as well as unemployment benefit.
The DWP could be reduced to a fraction of its size.
It also eliminates the issue of those not claiming benefits who are entitled to them and those fiddling the system.
Indeed. If I ever get the time to write it, I've been meaning to do a thread header suggesting a Universal Basic Income, from my right-wing perspective - if OGH would publish it, I wonder how many would attack me from the left for my thinking on that one?
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Who's saying you're not allowed to 'do' anything? We're having a political debate involving a difference of opinion. Neither of us has done anything wrong. Try chilling out and enjoying sharpening your own views rather than crying foul when someone disagrees strongly with what you're saying.
You posted a load of nonsense about what left wing politics is, it was only fair to do the same for you
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
Also worrying talk about BT being a takeover target. I have to say that if they do become one the government must prevent Openreach from falling into foreign or PE hands. It should be forcibly spun off as part of any purchase agreement for BT and the government should take a golden stake to prevent any future buyout approaches. It is a company that handles vital national infrastructure, it can't be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
Also worrying talk about BT being a takeover target. I have to say that if they do become one the government must prevent Openreach from falling into foreign or PE hands. It should be forcibly spun off as part of any purchase agreement for BT and the government should take a golden stake to prevent any future buyout approaches. It is a company that handles vital national infrastructure, it can't be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
I posted about this the other day so am glad you're now picking up on it Max.
Openreach will have to be nationalised/heavily regulated if BT is taken over, there is no other way to guarantee full FTTP rollout.
A buyer will sweat the copper assets and sit on it as long as possible, Openreach has only moved because it was going to be nationalised before
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
Also worrying talk about BT being a takeover target. I have to say that if they do become one the government must prevent Openreach from falling into foreign or PE hands. It should be forcibly spun off as part of any purchase agreement for BT and the government should take a golden stake to prevent any future buyout approaches. It is a company that handles vital national infrastructure, it can't be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
If ever there was a case for nationalisation - regardless of what happnes to BT or who owns it - it is Openreach.
It was sheer madness to leave it under BT's sole control when the market was deregulated.
Either Openreach should have been taken back in by the government, or it should have been owned in equal shares by all telecomms providers.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The Last Night of the Proms is a celebration of British patriotism in a light-hearted party atmosphere which is fun and inclusive. It's the most popular proms night of them all. It's loved by overseas visitors, as well as Britons here, and comes at the end of an annual event which forms a significant part of British culture - so it's very appropriate.
The continual attacks on it from the elitist Left, which have been going on for decades, simply reflect the fact that, for them, celebrating Britain is crime enough.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Who's saying you're not allowed to 'do' anything? We're having a political debate involving a difference of opinion. Neither of us has done anything wrong. Try chilling out and enjoying sharpening your own views rather than crying foul when someone disagrees strongly with what you're saying.
You posted a load of nonsense about what left wing politics is, it was only fair to do the same for you
But I never said you 'weren't allowed' to do anything. We were just disagreeing. You seem to be turning a debate (a good thing) into some sort of perceived personal attack on you from me - which there wasn't. I'm not sure why.
Also worrying talk about BT being a takeover target. I have to say that if they do become one the government must prevent Openreach from falling into foreign or PE hands. It should be forcibly spun off as part of any purchase agreement for BT and the government should take a golden stake to prevent any future buyout approaches. It is a company that handles vital national infrastructure, it can't be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
If ever there was a case for nationalisation - regardless of what happnes to BT or who owns it - it is Openreach.
It was sheer madness to leave it under BT's sole control when the market was deregulated.
Either Openreach should have been taken back in by the government, or it should have been owned in equal shares by all telecomms providers.
Being a heavily regulated listed company is fine, but ultimately it cannot be allowed to fall into foreign or PE hands. The result would be a 7-10 year delay in full fibre rollout and a huge slowdown of 5G rollout because of all the dependencies the technology has on fibre backhaul.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Who's saying you're not allowed to 'do' anything? We're having a political debate involving a difference of opinion. Neither of us has done anything wrong. Try chilling out and enjoying sharpening your own views rather than crying foul when someone disagrees strongly with what you're saying.
You posted a load of nonsense about what left wing politics is, it was only fair to do the same for you
But I never said you 'weren't allowed' to do anything. We were just disagreeing. You seem to be turning a debate (a good thing) into some sort of perceived personal attack on you from me - which there wasn't. I'm not sure why.
You need to take your own advice and chill out dude, I wasn't being literal when I said not allowed
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Actually Thomas Arne's opera Alfred, containing the Rule Britannia aria and chorus, would make a good Prom of the kind that only Radio 3 listeners tune into.
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
No they aren't. Even if they were, it is now, now that the EU has converted it into a football chant. The effect is like having a reproduction of the Mona Lisa on every sheet of your toilet paper.
It is as unfair to blame Beethoven for the EU as to blame that other genius, Da Vinci, for toilet paper. You do need take the time to listen to the whole thing - it is very multi-layered. I guess we will have to have different views on this.
Nevertheless you are completely wrong ....
"You do need take the time to listen to the whole thing." Oh rly?
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
He is.
Och, I'd never noticed.
In other news - any thoughts on how thje going back to school is going in Scotland? The usual suspects haven't found much to tweet with glee, appropriate ot otherwise, though it's too early to know the effect on infection rates.
It cannot be going badly or the pygmies would have been out squealing.
Also worrying talk about BT being a takeover target. I have to say that if they do become one the government must prevent Openreach from falling into foreign or PE hands. It should be forcibly spun off as part of any purchase agreement for BT and the government should take a golden stake to prevent any future buyout approaches. It is a company that handles vital national infrastructure, it can't be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
If ever there was a case for nationalisation - regardless of what happnes to BT or who owns it - it is Openreach.
It was sheer madness to leave it under BT's sole control when the market was deregulated.
Either Openreach should have been taken back in by the government, or it should have been owned in equal shares by all telecomms providers.
Being a heavily regulated listed company is fine, but ultimately it cannot be allowed to fall into foreign or PE hands. The result would be a 7-10 year delay in full fibre rollout and a huge slowdown of 5G rollout because of all the dependencies the technology has on fibre backhaul.
I'm more worried atm about the way BT is blatantly abusing its monopoly through Openreach to hamper its competitors.
But I would be more worried if it were owned by a Chinese corporation.
The truth is there is no good argument for the current Openreach structure, but there are a huge number of arguments against it.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Music lovers hate the Last Night, or at least in my experience. The reason they should keep it is that for many non-musicos (which is most of us) it justifies the rest the series which otherwise might disappear through lack of interest. It is notable in recent years that classical music has been padded out with film scores and the like. It is like Test cricket fans wanting to axe ODIs and so on -- get their way and in twenty years time it will have shrunk to the level of croquet.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
Depends on the state, and there's a big distinction between being convicted of a felony, which often does disqualify one from voting and running from office, even after release, and being convicted of a misdemeanor.
Trump is now legally resident in Florida, which historically did disenfranchise felons for life until overturned by a referendum very recently, and the GOP regime there has tried very hard to neuter the effect. It'd be quite deliciously ironic if Don found he was legally barred from running by the actions of a Republican governor and legislature, although such a qualification would probably only apply to his being on the ballot in Florida and not to any other state.
At federal level, there are many statutes that criminalize acts and impose as a penalty disqualification from holding "any office of honor, profit or trust under the United States", one such being sending troops or "armed men" to interfere with the polls, which is exactly what Trump tweeted he wanted to do the other day...
However, probably that would only apply to appointed offices and not elected offices. In general the qualification for the office of President is as set out in the Constitution as amended, and I think most scholars would expect SCOTUS to apply that as written if it ever came to them.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Most do not. But about a third do and those are the ones disproportionately represented at the BBC.
What surprises me about Openreach is why it hasn't already been nationalised.
We're about to give it £Billions for an FTTP rollout, why not buy it instead? Long term it's a far better proposition
What makes you think nationalised is good or cheaper?
Any payments for a FTTP rollout would pay for FTTP rollout, not for nationalisation. If you want to pay for nationalisation you'd still need to pay for FTTP rollout on top of that - and it would likely cost far, far more too and generate less in taxes too.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
He is.
Och, I'd never noticed.
In other news - any thoughts on how thje going back to school is going in Scotland? The usual suspects haven't found much to tweet with glee, appropriate ot otherwise, though it's too early to know the effect on infection rates.
A couple of schools locally have had to be closed again, notably Kingspark which is a special needs school which may well have had much more interaction with the pupils than normal, but my perception is that so far it is going quite well. I know from my sister that schools are a bit confused about the plethora of guidance, eg there is currently no social distancing under 12 but there should be after that age, something quite hard to police in a primary school. My sister claims her better Fitbit scores are a result of the one way systems but most classes do seem to be going ahead.
I think some more outbreaks in schools are inevitable but hopefully the consequences will be slight.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
Honestly, I think the BBC is now run by a set of moles from the radical right who are determined to get it pulled off air or made subscription only by repeatedly and deliberately shooting the corporation in its own foot.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
There's a precedent. Back in the 70s at least, the armed forces = taxpayer used to pay large sums to have officers' and other ranks' (?) children educated im boarding schools in the UK, and cart them to and from their parents' overseas duty stations. Obviously spending more than on ruperts and squaddies with no (official) children. A friend of mine went to boarding school when his dad went out to the Pacific islands with Cable and Wireless, though I am less sure the firm ponied up. No idea what the forces and firms do now, thouigh.
Methinks you wrong , I said we would be debt free leaving the union and then had a choice of whether we borrowed or not. It is no certainty we wouldl follow the ruinous UK spending that they foist as being our spending. Like most normal countries I believe we would run a prudent deficit that we could afford.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
A somewhat weak negative correlation* between lockdown effectiveness and economic contraction that should put paid to the received wisdom that death and economic damage are alternatives.
* Well run countries (not the UK), it seems, manage to avoid both killing its population and ruining its economy.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Music lovers hate the Last Night, or at least in my experience. The reason they should keep it is that for many non-musicos (which is most of us) it justifies the rest the series which otherwise might disappear through lack of interest. It is notable in recent years that classical music has been padded out with film scores and the like. It is like Test cricket fans wanting to axe ODIs and so on -- get their way and in twenty years time it will have shrunk to the level of croquet.
The two song in question make the UK look backward and wallowing in long gone past glories. They celebrate nothing of importance.
There is no justification or need for social housing.
That's a bold take. I'd rather it than landlord benefit.
Welfare should be temporary not permanent.
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
You're only eligible to receive housing benefit if someone else lives in your property.
Precisely, the whole thing is a mess and should be done away with. If people can't afford their own home then telling them to go into someone else's isn't a solution. If people are going through a rough patch then telling them to sell up or leave their home and move into social housing isn't a solution.
I support a clean, simply universal basic income aka a negative income tax. People should have their own money and be free to live where suits them with that - the government shouldn't have any say in where people live. Ensuring people can pay for their own home is better than any alternative.
Agree re universal income. Although this is often a left of centre policy I first became aware of it from a right wing think tank in the early 90s.
It could be used to get rid of many benefits, which become redundant. Income tax would be implemented from the first pound earned after the universal income and be progressive so the financial impact is neutral. It could even be used to replace basic maternity leave and sick pay, even state pension and student maintenance loans as well as unemployment benefit.
The DWP could be reduced to a fraction of its size.
It also eliminates the issue of those not claiming benefits who are entitled to them and those fiddling the system.
Indeed. If I ever get the time to write it, I've been meaning to do a thread header suggesting a Universal Basic Income, from my right-wing perspective - if OGH would publish it, I wonder how many would attack me from the left for my thinking on that one?
I have written some stuff on this a long time in the past. Key to me is keeping everyone above poverty and simplicity, it also gives more flexibility for people when making important decisions in their lives.
One area I struggle on is dependent children. It should also replace child benefit, but I assume a percentage of a single persons income would be given for each child. However I don't want to encourage multiple children for the purpose of getting extra income, but equally don't want to fall back into poverty scenarios if you taper it away when there are extra children.
Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
A few we may well be well shot of I suspect. Given we own a significant portion of Nat West I am sure we will be just fine.
I hate to break it to you Malcolm, but unless you were referring to your family pension portfolio rather than the Scottish government, 'you' do not own any part of NatWest. It's 60-odd% controlled by the UK government.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The Last Night of the Proms is a celebration of British patriotism in a light-hearted party atmosphere which is fun and inclusive. It's the most popular proms night of them all. It's loved by overseas visitors, as well as Britons here, and comes at the end of an annual event which forms a significant part of British culture - so it's very appropriate.
The continual attacks on it from the elitist Left, which have been going on for decades, simply reflect the fact that, for them, celebrating Britain is crime enough.
So you would ban all non-British music/composers from the Proms then?
Comments
Critics who think Beethoven's 9th symphony choral stuff is senile shite are plain wrong.
It seems to be a bit like the tours of the Bolshoi during the cold war. Trying to tell a story that just isn't true.
They have several hundred thousand people signed up and it's a question of offering those people something that sits well alongside the ride hailing or that can take the place of it. No idea whether Uber Eats, for example, is profitable. Or hook up with Ocado even for something or other.
FMCG entrepreneur I am not!
I would rather give someone extra welfare for a year or two while they go through tough times that goes to their landlord (or bank if they're mortgage holders) - than social housing for the rest of their life.
I must say I don't want to go full Titania but I am astonished people give this stuff a relatively free pass while tearing down statues of inoffensive Bristol philanthropists. For instance in 1740 When Rule Britannia was written the British colony of South Carolina passes the Negro Act which " ... prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food." Britons never shall be slaves, but they'll make bloody sure everybody else is. And Land of Hope and Glory allegedly marks the publication of the will of Cecil Rhodes.
One of the reasons you are a libertarian and I am not
Their app is not unique, there are dozens of competitors that could build a similar thing. They might have popularised the idea of a taxi hailing app but they have no way to hold that as a unique proposition.
Tesla could get in, Google could get in. Then Uber is screwed.
I am astonished they aren't already bankrupt.
We should have a universal basic income with no need for either social housing or housing benefit.
What I do say is that (a) criminal damage is criminal damage and (b) as it was torn down by a mob of almost exclusively white racists I think we should assume there were other things than slavery in their minds at the time.
I support a clean, simply universal basic income aka a negative income tax. People should have their own money and be free to live where suits them with that - the government shouldn't have any say in where people live. Ensuring people can pay for their own home is better than any alternative.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1297463753403924480?s=20
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1297463755283083265?s=20
But my point was why wouyldn't the same white racists try to storm the Albert Hall on tlnotp? Perhaps they will.
That tweet is interesting.
Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
It could be used to get rid of many benefits, which become redundant. Income tax would be implemented from the first pound earned after the universal income and be progressive so the financial impact is neutral. It could even be used to replace basic maternity leave and sick pay, even state pension and student maintenance loans as well as unemployment benefit.
The DWP could be reduced to a fraction of its size.
It also eliminates the issue of those not claiming benefits who are entitled to them and those fiddling the system.
The original words as written were a reference to the relevant tyranny of autocratic rule in France and Spain at the time, with whom Britain was often in conflict, and exulting the freedoms that Britons experienced by contrast and its dependence on its navy to protect them.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
Change is needed.
Whilst I actually agree that Scotland should be allowed to start debt free, it won't be debt free for long!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
Nevertheless you are completely wrong ....
Openreach will have to be nationalised/heavily regulated if BT is taken over, there is no other way to guarantee full FTTP rollout.
A buyer will sweat the copper assets and sit on it as long as possible, Openreach has only moved because it was going to be nationalised before
It was sheer madness to leave it under BT's sole control when the market was deregulated.
Either Openreach should have been taken back in by the government, or it should have been owned in equal shares by all telecomms providers.
The continual attacks on it from the elitist Left, which have been going on for decades, simply reflect the fact that, for them, celebrating Britain is crime enough.
We're going to end up giving them the money anyway.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
There isn't one
Oh rly?
The sort of advice I come to pb for.
But I would be more worried if it were owned by a Chinese corporation.
The truth is there is no good argument for the current Openreach structure, but there are a huge number of arguments against it.
We're about to give it £Billions for an FTTP rollout, why not buy it instead? Long term it's a far better proposition
On the issue of money, I'd actually suggest they sell the government a long dated low yield bond, it effectively makes the government the owner.
Buy a partial stake then, 20% would be a good start.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
Trump is now legally resident in Florida, which historically did disenfranchise felons for life until overturned by a referendum very recently, and the GOP regime there has tried very hard to neuter the effect. It'd be quite deliciously ironic if Don found he was legally barred from running by the actions of a Republican governor and legislature, although such a qualification would probably only apply to his being on the ballot in Florida and not to any other state.
At federal level, there are many statutes that criminalize acts and impose as a penalty disqualification from holding "any office of honor, profit or trust under the United States", one such being sending troops or "armed men" to interfere with the polls, which is exactly what Trump tweeted he wanted to do the other day...
However, probably that would only apply to appointed offices and not elected offices. In general the qualification for the office of President is as set out in the Constitution as amended, and I think most scholars would expect SCOTUS to apply that as written if it ever came to them.
Any payments for a FTTP rollout would pay for FTTP rollout, not for nationalisation. If you want to pay for nationalisation you'd still need to pay for FTTP rollout on top of that - and it would likely cost far, far more too and generate less in taxes too.
I think some more outbreaks in schools are inevitable but hopefully the consequences will be slight.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
Can PBers suggest some decent restaurants in Newcastle city centre?
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
* Well run countries (not the UK), it seems, manage to avoid both killing its population and ruining its economy.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
One area I struggle on is dependent children. It should also replace child benefit, but I assume a percentage of a single persons income would be given for each child. However I don't want to encourage multiple children for the purpose of getting extra income, but equally don't want to fall back into poverty scenarios if you taper it away when there are extra children.
I vow to thee my country I can take or leave.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
It's phenomenally hard on the organ.