I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
He has two great achievements to his credit - implementing the will of the people as expressed in 2016, which his two predecessors did not, and winning a clear overall majority, which his six predecessors did not. The first ended a nasty political and constitutional crisis, and the second kept Corbyn out. Not a bad record for his first year.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
Thatcher the most destructive, divisive And heartless individual to ever occupy No 10
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
Personally I was hoping he'd be able to thrash out the outline of an Oz deal with ScoMo over a few tinnies.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
Unionists keep bringing it back because they think it will save the union.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
Local government as a whole is a complete mess of overlapping structures which varies from locality to locality.
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
Regional devolution - is it really such a bad idea? You can't govern "England" on a one size fits no-one model. We have some areas with huge artificial county councils, others with small unitary authorities. An utter lack of co-ordination is the result. A North East authority has more merit than an elected Mayor for North Tyne...
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
More people live in England than the rest put together. Many times over. So if a majority of people in England however it is subdivided vote against the Welsh view then they will win.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
Local government as a whole is a complete mess of overlapping structures which varies from locality to locality.
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
It can all seem rather opaque.
I was excited by ideas of doing away with district councils, but I cannot imagine the Tory heartlands would go for that enmasse.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
And they wonder why people riot and want to de fund the police.
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis
They what?!
It's difficult to think of a way to present the statement 'forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects' that would make it in any way acceptable.
'Slipped them a little something to make them compliant'?
Shit, no good.
"We provide suspects with free food, drinks, accommodation & medical grade drugs - come party at our crib" - Colorado Police
"We'll arrest you for taking it voluntarily, and make you take it involuntarily if we arrest you. Oh, and we might kill you too. And you're paying for all of it." And people wonder where the Defund the Police movement has come from.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up into small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
I think I've always thought the right way to do it was to divide off London (which already has a form of self-Government) with ROE. But I'm not even truly sure of that - though population-wise it makes a bit more sense. And yes, it would mean different parts siding together on different things.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
He has two great achievements to his credit - implementing the will of the people as expressed in 2016, which his two predecessors did not, and winning a clear overall majority, which his six predecessors did not. The first ended a nasty political and constitutional crisis, and the second kept Corbyn out. Not a bad record for his first year.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
Thatcher the most destructive, divisive And heartless individual to ever occupy No 10
I do think this is closer to the mark than the "saviour and heroine" view of her.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
More people live in England than the rest put together. Many times over. So if a majority of people in England however it is subdivided vote against the Welsh view then they will win.
Indeed, but given devolution then only some things can be imposed on the Welsh. For instance defence and foreign policy.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up into small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
I think I've always thought the right way to do it was to divide off London (which already has a form of self-Government) with ROE. But I'm not even truly sure of that - though population-wise it makes a bit more sense. And yes, it would mean different parts siding together on different things.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
If the EU becomes a Federal superstate there will be an EU army, not a Scottish army, EU membership of the UN Security Council, maybe even replacing Scottish membership of the General Assembly, Scotland will swap the £ for the Euro and may even have EU stamps with Von Der Leyen's head on.
Post Brexit UK will still be an independent member of the UN Security Council, still have its own army and still have the £ and stamps with the Queen's head on
People are always saying, about shy-kippers, shy-Tories, shy-brexiteers, shy-Trumpers, shy-Corbynites, shy sindy-supporters - 'Well, they look anything but shy to me!! tee hee!!' - that's because the ones you see are by definition the non shy ones.
That's true, and I accept that there are always some people who won't admit voting a particular way as it's deemed socially unacceptable in their community (and some others who will revel in being contrarian).
So there will be shy Trump supporters and shy Biden ones, as well as proud Trump supporters and proud Biden ones.
My issue is whether we should assume there is as much logic in weighting for shy Trump in 2020 as in 2016.
I'd suggest not - it's a little different for us being insulated from it in the UK, but a lot of the last four years in the USA have been about normalising views and a style of doing business which were more shocking in 2016. Each Trump outburst is less shocking than the last and, although he's upped the ante to a degree to maintain impact, there is surely an extent to which people are desensitised.
Personally I can only go on the UK (which I appreciate is not a good guide to the US). Here, as Trump has been in office, his notoriety has grown. If anything, it has become less socially acceptable to be Trump-favourable, not more. Those who outwardly support Trump here, are personified by Nigel Farage - people who thrive on offering controversial opinions.
We mainly hear the gaffes and scandals. We don't have Fox News. We don't often hear from the ranks of congressmen and other defenders (except when they themselves slip up). We also don't directly experience an economy which, until this year, has performed pretty well (albeit one can argue Obama left it in a good state).
My sense is that Americans get rather more voices touting Trump's achievements than the vainglorious Twitter feed of the man himself that we get. So you've got quite a strong degree of covering fire in the USA to come out for Trump - more than in 2016.
If you're still a somewhat shy fan of the man you can also run the argument, "I don't like his tweets and some of his behaviour any more than you... but you can't argue with the Dow Jones numbers, so I will hold my nose and vote for him". You can say that even if, secretly, you are attracted by the race-baiting and so on more than the economic stuff. That wasn't an option in 2016 as he wasn't running on a political record.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up into small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
I think I've always thought the right way to do it was to divide off London (which already has a form of self-Government) with ROE. But I'm not even truly sure of that - though population-wise it makes a bit more sense. And yes, it would mean different parts siding together on different things.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
What is needed is effective local administration. Balkanising England into a collection of little cantons - each with a separate parliament, government and progressively diverging statute book - is a mad proposition. Moreover, of all the possible reasons for attempting such a thing, the most stupid and futile is to please Scotland, because (a) that is impossible and (b) it's leaving anyway.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up into small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
I think I've always thought the right way to do it was to divide off London (which already has a form of self-Government) with ROE. But I'm not even truly sure of that - though population-wise it makes a bit more sense. And yes, it would mean different parts siding together on different things.
"ROE", please?
Rest of England.
Thank you! I couldn't work out what relevance Rules of Engagement had ...
But it’s choppy waters. And wine. In my case. Poseidon and Aeolus, forcing me to Linger in Pelion.
Worse places to be stranded, no doubt.
It is absolutely sublime. Edenic. Yesterday we were swimming in the vast, booming, black-and-emerald sea-caves of Thetis, the Nereid, mother of Achilles.
In the lushly forested mountains (where they ski in winter) they slow-cook the milk-fed lamb, five miles away, down by the sea, they serve up red mullet, straight off the boat. The fishing boats actually tie up by the tavernas. The fishwives hang the fresh octopus from washing lines to dry, like in a TV documentary of Mediterranean life in the 1950s.
And it is QUIET. I thought this was Covid, of course, but the other day I met a British couple who’ve been coming here 20 years. I asked them about the lovely tranquility, such a pleasant change, blah blah. They said ‘oh no, it’s always like this, please don’t tell anyone.’
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
What is needed is effective local administration. Balkanising England into a collection of little cantons - each with a separate parliament, government and progressively diverging statute book - is a mad proposition. Moreover, of all the possible reasons for attempting such a thing, the most stupid and futile is to please Scotland, because (a) that is impossible and (b) it's leaving anyway.
I'm surprised you're so confident of that prediction, when it's built on sentiment. It's just sentiment. Sentiment can change during a conversation, let alone over years. Quite a few people think independence would make them feel better at the moment. No guarantee they will tomorrow. No guarantee they won't. No guarantee something else doesn't come along that makes them feel better.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Yes, much as I like Frankie Boyle I wouldn’t put him in charge of anything apart from a post watershed comedy show.
What is appropriate stand up is often not appropriate for someone wanting a career in politics, and rightly so.
Not Toby's only offence either...
He told an edgy joke on Twitter after having had a few beers. I've done the same. So have you. People in public life are real people just like you and me.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
If the EU becomes a Federal superstate there will be an EU army, not a Scottish army, EU membership of the UN Security Council, maybe even replacing Scottish membership of the General Assembly, Scotland will swap the £ for the Euro and may even have EU stamps with Von Der Leyen's head on.
Post Brexit UK will still be an independent member of the UN Security Council, still have its own army and still have the £ and stamps with the Queen's head on
There’s a lot of “ifs” and high fantasy in this comment.
If all the EU high fantasy had stayed high fantasy and not started to become reality we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
If it meets 4 times a year and has no powers then what is the point of it exactly? Since expertise in trade doesn't seem to be a requirement, but agreeing with the aims and objectives of the government does, then what constructive "advice" will they be able to proffer? Other than Good Show, chaps, keep it going.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
That's an important point - but then the multiple [edit] English bits can then disagree amongst themselves. Northumbria might well have common cause with Scotland on some issues, and London on others, as recent politics has shown.
What is needed is effective local administration. Balkanising England into a collection of little cantons - each with a separate parliament, government and progressively diverging statute book - is a mad proposition. Moreover, of all the possible reasons for attempting such a thing, the most stupid and futile is to please Scotland, because (a) that is impossible and (b) it's leaving anyway.
There's a risk of the South East tail wagging the rest of England dog here.
Having spent the last few years away from Romford, it's really obvious that Greater Yorkshire works as an emotionally coherent entity. No, it shouldn't have an independent army (they'd enjoy it too much) but it's more than a canton. Similarly England-north-of-Yorkshire. And the lands west of the Pennines. And the midlands. And the sticky-out bits of East Anglia and South West.
OK, that leaves a rough quadrilateral, say Bournemouth - Oxford - Chelmsford and points south and east, which are a sprawl, mostly looking towards London but not London.
Maybe it shouldn't be done. But for most of England, it's not mad.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Yes, much as I like Frankie Boyle I wouldn’t put him in charge of anything apart from a post watershed comedy show.
What is appropriate stand up is often not appropriate for someone wanting a career in politics, and rightly so.
Not Toby's only offence either...
He told an edgy joke on Twitter after having had a few beers. I've done the same. So have you. People in public life are real people just like you and me.
Get over yourself.
Sure, but if I wanted a public position like Medical Director of the Hospital, or College President, rather than being part of the poor bloody infantry, it would haunt me too.
Toby chose to be a deliberate contraversialist. Fine as a journalist, just incompatable with many public positions. He made his bed.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
Local government as a whole is a complete mess of overlapping structures which varies from locality to locality.
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
It can all seem rather opaque.
Khan isn't the only elected Mayor in London - four of the 32 London Boroughs also have their own directly elected Mayors.
Got a smaller population than Greater Manchester or the West Midlands.
Greater Manchester and Greater Birmingham are relatively small metropolitan areas. Trafford and Bolton can be plausibly said to be encompassed within the same locality; Berwick-upon-Tweed and Durham are two widely dispersed communities within a larger region.
With the possible exception of Yorkshire, there is no particular desire for regional governance in England, and the regions themselves would mostly be woolly and ill-defined. Cumbria probably doesn't contain enough people to count as an entire region on its own, so does it get lumped in with the North-West, or with the Far North? Where does the West Country begin and end? Or the East of England? Or the South-East?
In most of the country, these overarching structures are unnecessary. What would probably work best is wholesale unitarisation, with a fairly wide population range between the smallest and largest authorities to allow them to be adapted to local circumstances and fitted to historic county boundaries, with an overarching Mayor-and-Assembly structure for the largest conurbations (Greater London, Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester.)
A plethora of competing regions, one and two-tiered council structures, combined authorities and metro-mayors with all sorts of different ranges of powers makes little sense.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
If it meets 4 times a year and has no powers then what is the point of it exactly? Since expertise in trade doesn't seem to be a requirement, but agreeing with the aims and objectives of the government does, then what constructive "advice" will they be able to proffer? Other than Good Show, chaps, keep it going.
There are lots of these advisory boards in government. TBH they are of pretty minor importance, but then they cost virtually nothing (many of them are entirely unpaid, I'm not sure whether this one is). They provide a sounding board for ideas and possibly a different perspective to what the civil servants can provide.
This one looks as though it might have a useful role - for example, Tony Abbott would probably be quite a good source of advice on potential trade links with the Pacific rim countries, and he no doubt has some useful contacts.
Yes, obviously. There are also shy Biden voters. If you live in rural Alabama, and go to an evangelical Church, and hang out with people who think Biden is going to take away your guns, then you probably don't announce it out loud.
Fortunately, we have examples of other "socially unacceptable" views, and people being unwilling to admit having them.
The EU referendum is a classic example. Many people didn't want to be seen as "a little Englander", and would say to pollsters that they planned to vote Remain, when actually they were going to vote Leave.
People are much more willing to admit to socially unacceptable views to machines than to human beings. It's why live telephone polls for the EU referendum showed 10 to 15 point leads for Remain, while on-line and automated voice response polls, showed it as a dead head or a small lead for Leave.
So. Let's look at the polls, and see if there is a big difference between phone and on-line pollsters.
USC (which interestingly got 2016 pretty much spot on) uses an on-line panel of 8,000 voters, and surveys one fourteenth of them every day to create a moving tracking poll. It has Biden at 52%. YouGov (which is also an on-line poll) shows Biden at 51%.
It's hard therefore to say that on-line pollsters are giving very different results to live pollsters.
IBD/TIPP - which also did great in 2016 - offers up some of the best evidence for shy Trumpers. From their latest report: "20% of registered voters say they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate, but that rises to 28% among independents. Among registered independents, 24% say they agree with Trump on some issues but are reluctant to admit that in public."
So, all in all, the evidence is mixed. That on-line pollsters don't give better results for Trump should be a source of concern for him. That some voters admit that they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate is an opportunity.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
He has two great achievements to his credit - implementing the will of the people as expressed in 2016, which his two predecessors did not, and winning a clear overall majority, which his six predecessors did not. The first ended a nasty political and constitutional crisis, and the second kept Corbyn out. Not a bad record for his first year.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
Thatcher the most destructive, divisive And heartless individual to ever occupy No 10
Whilst I would take a more charitable view, many of the problems we are grappling with today had their roots in her administration. Housing, left behind areas, regional inequalities, over reliance on service industries and Scotland just off the top of my head. Ironically many of which the Tories just won a majority promising to sort out.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
Local government as a whole is a complete mess of overlapping structures which varies from locality to locality.
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
It can all seem rather opaque.
Khan isn't the only elected Mayor in London - four of the 32 London Boroughs also have their own directly elected Mayors.
And, of course, the City of London has its own Corporation, Lord Mayor and a separate police force, which all makes complete sense for a postage stamp-sized territory in which hardly anybody actually resides.
Unfortunately there is no sign of the PM choosing anything. He's as bad as Gordon Brown in that respect. Perhaps even worse - at least Gordon Brown spent much effort dithering over his non-decisions; Boris doesn't even seem to realise he needs to make decisions.
But it’s choppy waters. And wine. In my case. Poseidon and Aeolus, forcing me to Linger in Pelion.
Worse places to be stranded, no doubt.
It is absolutely sublime. Edenic. Yesterday we were swimming in the vast, booming, black-and-emerald sea-caves of Thetis, the Nereid, mother of Achilles.
In the lushly forested mountains (where they ski in winter) they slow-cook the milk-fed lamb, five miles away, down by the sea, they serve up red mullet, straight off the boat. The fishing boats actually tie up by the tavernas. The fishwives hang the fresh octopus from washing lines to dry, like in a TV documentary of Mediterranean life in the 1950s.
And it is QUIET. I thought this was Covid, of course, but the other day I met a British couple who’ve been coming here 20 years. I asked them about the lovely tranquility, such a pleasant change, blah blah. They said ‘oh no, it’s always like this, please don’t tell anyone.’
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
I know a joke about trickle down economics but 99% of you won't get it.
People are always saying, about shy-kippers, shy-Tories, shy-brexiteers, shy-Trumpers, shy-Corbynites, shy sindy-supporters - 'Well, they look anything but shy to me!! tee hee!!' - that's because the ones you see are by definition the non shy ones.
That's true, and I accept that there are always some people who won't admit voting a particular way as it's deemed socially unacceptable in their community (and some others who will revel in being contrarian).
So there will be shy Trump supporters and shy Biden ones, as well as proud Trump supporters and proud Biden ones.
My issue is whether we should assume there is as much logic in weighting for shy Trump in 2020 as in 2016.
I'd suggest not - it's a little different for us being insulated from it in the UK, but a lot of the last four years in the USA have been about normalising views and a style of doing business which were more shocking in 2016. Each Trump outburst is less shocking than the last and, although he's upped the ante to a degree to maintain impact, there is surely an extent to which people are desensitised.
Personally I can only go on the UK (which I appreciate is not a good guide to the US). Here, as Trump has been in office, his notoriety has grown. If anything, it has become less socially acceptable to be Trump-favourable, not more. Those who outwardly support Trump here, are personified by Nigel Farage - people who thrive on offering controversial opinions.
We mainly hear the gaffes and scandals. We don't have Fox News. We don't often hear from the ranks of congressmen and other defenders (except when they themselves slip up). We also don't directly experience an economy which, until this year, has performed pretty well (albeit one can argue Obama left it in a good state).
My sense is that Americans get rather more voices touting Trump's achievements than the vainglorious Twitter feed of the man himself that we get. So you've got quite a strong degree of covering fire in the USA to come out for Trump - more than in 2016.
If you're still a somewhat shy fan of the man you can also run the argument, "I don't like his tweets and some of his behaviour any more than you... but you can't argue with the Dow Jones numbers, so I will hold my nose and vote for him". You can say that even if, secretly, you are attracted by the race-baiting and so on more than the economic stuff. That wasn't an option in 2016 as he wasn't running on a political record.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
Woke is a word coined by African Americans to describe other African Americans becoming aware of the role of systemic racism in their life.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
Local government as a whole is a complete mess of overlapping structures which varies from locality to locality.
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
It can all seem rather opaque.
Khan isn't the only elected Mayor in London - four of the 32 London Boroughs also have their own directly elected Mayors.
It's a total dog's dinner and has been ever since the historic counties were mostly abolished. The sensible start is to restore most of the historic counties and plan from that basis.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
But woke allows you to reveal the underlying racism and sexism that is visible only to the enlightened eye.
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
Woke is a word coined by African Americans to describe other African Americans becoming aware of the role of systemic racism in their life.
Woke doesn't mean "people you don't like".
I know precisely what it means. I await a ‘Woke Joke’ to prove me wrong
Yes, obviously. There are also shy Biden voters. If you live in rural Alabama, and go to an evangelical Church, and hang out with people who think Biden is going to take away your guns, then you probably don't announce it out loud.
Fortunately, we have examples of other "socially unacceptable" views, and people being unwilling to admit having them.
The EU referendum is a classic example. Many people didn't want to be seen as "a little Englander", and would say to pollsters that they planned to vote Remain, when actually they were going to vote Leave.
People are much more willing to admit to socially unacceptable views to machines than to human beings. It's why live telephone polls for the EU referendum showed 10 to 15 point leads for Remain, while on-line and automated voice response polls, showed it as a dead head or a small lead for Leave.
So. Let's look at the polls, and see if there is a big difference between phone and on-line pollsters.
USC (which interestingly got 2016 pretty much spot on) uses an on-line panel of 8,000 voters, and surveys one fourteenth of them every day to create a moving tracking poll. It has Biden at 52%. YouGov (which is also an on-line poll) shows Biden at 51%.
It's hard therefore to say that on-line pollsters are giving very different results to live pollsters.
IBD/TIPP - which also did great in 2016 - offers up some of the best evidence for shy Trumpers. From their latest report: "20% of registered voters say they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate, but that rises to 28% among independents. Among registered independents, 24% say they agree with Trump on some issues but are reluctant to admit that in public."
So, all in all, the evidence is mixed. That on-line pollsters don't give better results for Trump should be a source of concern for him. That some voters admit that they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate is an opportunity.
I quite like @SirNorfolkPassmore's focus on the wife with the MAGA hubby who pretends she's on board but isn't. Must be plenty of those. Shy Bideners.
Women will kick him out, I think. I have great faith in this.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
But woke allows you to reveal the underlying racism and sexism that is visible only to the enlightened eye.
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Yes, much as I like Frankie Boyle I wouldn’t put him in charge of anything apart from a post watershed comedy show.
What is appropriate stand up is often not appropriate for someone wanting a career in politics, and rightly so.
Not Toby's only offence either...
He told an edgy joke on Twitter after having had a few beers. I've done the same. So have you. People in public life are real people just like you and me.
Get over yourself.
Sure, but if I wanted a public position like Medical Director of the Hospital, or College President, rather than being part of the poor bloody infantry, it would haunt me too.
Toby chose to be a deliberate contraversialist. Fine as a journalist, just incompatable with many public positions. He made his bed.
I don't think so. Being a controversial journalist once shouldn't rule you out of public positions for life.
Ever wondered why the quality of people we get in public life is generally so crap and banal?
Sat on the wall outside the best Parmo hostelry in Thornaby which has just reopened after the owners went back to Greece for a holiday. Can't help but notice how dark it's getting already.
Ordinarily I hate the winter. But this year? Let's get on with it so we can leave 2020 behind.
Watson is a very good polemicist. Whatever you think of his politics
In the last two weeks, in between swims and grilled sardines, I’ve been watching this fresh madness in America.
Two weeks ago I would have given Trump a 10% chance of winning. Now I’d say it’s nearer to 30% or even 40%
The Democrats have lost control of this latest culture war, yet are helplessly associated with the worst aspects of it. That’s not good. They need it to stop.
There's a risk of the South East tail wagging the rest of England dog here.
Having spent the last few years away from Romford, it's really obvious that Greater Yorkshire works as an emotionally coherent entity. No, it shouldn't have an independent army (they'd enjoy it too much) but it's more than a canton. Similarly England-north-of-Yorkshire. And the lands west of the Pennines. And the midlands. And the sticky-out bits of East Anglia and South West.
OK, that leaves a rough quadrilateral, say Bournemouth - Oxford - Chelmsford and points south and east, which are a sprawl, mostly looking towards London but not London.
Maybe it shouldn't be done. But for most of England, it's not mad.
Where does Cumbria go? It doesn't contain enough people to constitute a region, so does it get lumped in with the North-West or the North-East? If it's the North-East then you end up with a Far Northern region that's arguably a lot less coherent than the North-East on its own; if the North-West then you stick a big unwanted appendage on Lancashire. Assuming, of course, that you want a Lancashire to mirror Yorkshire, and that Liverpool and Manchester can co-exist in the same region.
Now, after that, does Cheshire get lumped in with Lancashire or with some sort of North Midlands entity? Or perhaps with the Welsh Marches? Or the West Midlands? Actually, if we have a West Midlands then should that encompass the whole current statistical region, or should there be separate governments for Greater Birmingham and for the wider region outwith it?
What do we do with the West Country? Again, Cornwall is too small to be a region, but does it have the get-out clause of demanding to be hived off as an entirely separate Celtic country? Failing that, does it end up as an appendage of a Devonwall thing, or an even larger thing featuring Somerset and Dorset, or an even bigger thing than that including Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire? Or, perhaps, should the latter three be folded into a South Midlands region, or a Wessex thingy, and where ought that to begin and end? That, in turn, brings us to the tremendous question of how many pieces to break the Home Counties up into, and in what precise configuration, which impinges on the extent of the East of England or East Anglia thing, whatever that ends up being.
This is not just an orbit of London issue - there simply aren't that many clear and obvious regional or provincial Government areas, save for Greater London and Yorkshire restored to pre-1974 boundaries. The rest of it is probably going to end up being artificial - and the argument that we shouldn't have anything between about eight and twelve new governments and parliaments - which, to return to what (I think) was the original point, would be needed to create a federal system with roughly Scotland- or Wales-sized states - still stands.
England is a single nation of relatively modest territorial extent. Effective local government is called for, not a collection of mostly contrived regions.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
Woke is a word coined by African Americans to describe other African Americans becoming aware of the role of systemic racism in their life.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
But woke allows you to reveal the underlying racism and sexism that is visible only to the enlightened eye.
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
Woke is a word coined by African Americans to describe other African Americans becoming aware of the role of systemic racism in their life.
Woke doesn't mean "people you don't like".
Yes. Of course if you use it to mean closed minded and humourless it will be incompatible with quality comedy.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
Woke is a word coined by African Americans to describe other African Americans becoming aware of the role of systemic racism in their life.
I remember @HYUFD being mocked on here for suggesting some Tory MPs might vote against it.
As he should be.
He was mocked for suggesting that some Tory MPs might vote down the budget and not lose the whip . . . and for saying that voting down the budget is not a "Confidence and Supply" issue.
He never did get around to explaining what he thought "and Supply" meant.
Over a 100 Tory MPs will vote down a budget containing VAT, NI or income tax rises in breach of the 2019 Tory manifesto so if they all lost the whip the government would lose its majority. Which is why Sunak will not do that even if he increased corporation tax and equates CGT with income tax.
Supply is not the same as confidence, you can amend the budget, you cannot overturn a no confidence vote once lost
Equating CGT with Income Tax would be a 20pp increase in CGT. That would be a harder sell to his MPs than a 1p rise in Income Tax or NI.
Sat on the wall outside the best Parmo hostelry in Thornaby which has just reopened after the owners went back to Greece for a holiday. Can't help but notice how dark it's getting already.
Ordinarily I hate the winter. But this year? Let's get on with it so we can leave 2020 behind.
I read a rather lovely essay today about the joys of autumn and - normally - yeah, there's a lot to enjoy. Just like that first day of real warmth in April/May, you can look forwards to the first time the fire comes on in the pub, the oranges and reds in the leaves, the first frost, clear skies and, (again normally) the coming together in October and November for Halloween and Guy Fawkes.
This year will be a tough winter, but it needn't be completely without joys.
It’s not a good enough reason to vote for Trump but it will sure make a lot of Americans think about which side they want to be on.
This is why I'd go third party.
Some of Trump's policies and the positions of the Republican Party I agree with.
But he's a stratospheric tw*t and an evil c**t.
So I'd never vote for him.
Its why I'd vote Biden.
Biden is sane and not represented by the extreme idiots that get highlighted, unlike Sanders.
I could have also voted if I were an American for McCain and Romney . . . and if either of them had won, then I don't think Trump would have ever made it.
A vote for Biden is a vote to get rid of Trump and a vote not to have the extremists on the Democrat side either. If Biden loses then next time the Democratic nominee could be someone on the lines of Sanders and AOC, and they could actually win like Trump did.
A vote for Biden is a vote for sanity. In both the GOP and the Democrats.
"I've been a big supporter of mental health," Biden said. "I'd recommend the people who believe it maybe should take advantage, while it still exists, of the Affordable Care Act."...
What to do with Cumbria? Recreate Strathclyde. Similarly pre-Danelaw Northumbria
One of the thing that the Spaniards got right with their post-Franco devolution was to make it bottom-up.
If a cluster of counties want to form a region, let them. Have a process where they justify the degree of devolution. If any counties can't be bothered, they can stay under Whitehall control.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
But woke allows you to reveal the underlying racism and sexism that is visible only to the enlightened eye.
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
This post is certainly hilarious!
☺
But you know what I mean. Great comedy often reveals something that once revealed makes you wonder how you could have missed it before.
Think about some of what has done it for you over the years and I bet you see this is right.
Course there's always room for slapstick and bawdy belly laughs etc too. Cooper. Hill.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
Most of the time there would be several Englands likely to vote with them. It would encourage the sense that Scotland had more in common with England than difference.
What to do with Cumbria? Recreate Strathclyde. Similarly pre-Danelaw Northumbria
One of the thing that the Spaniards got right with their post-Franco devolution was to make it bottom-up.
If a cluster of counties want to form a region, let them. Have a process where they justify the degree of devolution. If any counties can't be bothered, they can stay under Whitehall control.
It's asymmetric, illogical and it works.
The devolved communities are causing problems in the pandemic, gaining unanimous agreement on a common approach is proving difficult, Madrid has fallen out with the central government and they are all squabbling over how the bailout money is distributed. Nobody is talking independence which is a relief. Sanchez runs a minority government which also makes life difficult.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
Most of the time there would be several Englands likely to vote with them. It would encourage the sense that Scotland had more in common with England than difference.
Unfortunately, said Englands would also likely be ones that are poorer than Scotland and would be most insistent on replacing, at long last, the stupid Barnett formula. Which would only make Scotland grumble even more than at present.
It’s not a good enough reason to vote for Trump but it will sure make a lot of Americans think about which side they want to be on.
This is why I'd go third party.
Some of Trump's policies and the positions of the Republican Party I agree with.
But he's a stratospheric tw*t and an evil c**t.
So I'd never vote for him.
Its why I'd vote Biden.
Biden is sane and not represented by the extreme idiots that get highlighted, unlike Sanders.
I could have also voted if I were an American for McCain and Romney . . . and if either of them had won, then I don't think Trump would have ever made it.
A vote for Biden is a vote to get rid of Trump and a vote not to have the extremists on the Democrat side either. If Biden loses then next time the Democratic nominee could be someone on the lines of Sanders and AOC, and they could actually win like Trump did.
A vote for Biden is a vote for sanity. In both the GOP and the Democrats.
I think Romney would have been a genuinely excellent President (not least because he made the best gags).
Ultimately, what matters is process not people. So while I think Biden will be a poor President...
He will not further damage the American system of government. He will respect the separation of powers in the constitution. He won't continually attempt to circumvent Congress via Executive Orders. He won't deliberately forment division for electoral purposes. He won't mix his personal business and his the business of the Head of State. He won't claim that he could shoot someone in Park Avenue and it wouldn't be illegal. He won't blithely accept the word of foreign leaders over his own intelligence services. And he won't repeatedly and blatantly lie.
This is not about "extremists". There is a lot I agree with Trump on: I think the US has done a terrible job at looking after its manufacturing base, and dealing with the consequences of globalisation. I think it's failed to make it so that people are encouraged to play by the rules for immigration.
But the Presidency is not an Imperial role. I've always said "better a good system than a great person". And Trump isn't even a great person. What he is is someone who is undermining the very systems that make America great.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But isn't the essence of federalism that England, despite its size, is given parity of importance with the other component parts on one level? So wouldn't breaking England up in to small chunks make it worse for Wales, Scotland and NI, because there would be multiple 'Englands' always able to outvote them?
Most of the time there would be several Englands likely to vote with them. It would encourage the sense that Scotland had more in common with England than difference.
Unfortunately, said Englands would also likely be ones that are poorer than Scotland and would be most insistent on replacing, at long last, the stupid Barnett formula. Which would only make Scotland grumble even more than at present.
The Barnett formula. Has ever more nonsense been written about anything than about the Barnett formula?
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
I'd say it's just an example of comedy, although I accept it's not to everyone's taste.
Cleese is also right, here. I cannot conceive of a ‘woke joke’. Comedy is all about breaking taboos. Wokeness is all about the creation - and enforcement - of new taboos. Comedy and Wokeness are fundamentally at odds.
But woke allows you to reveal the underlying racism and sexism that is visible only to the enlightened eye.
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
Comments
Post-1974 Cambridgeshire, for example, has a county council, with a number of district and city councils sitting under that (one of which, Huntingdonshire, is an historic county in its own right but was not restored in the same manner as Rutland despite being substantially larger.) It also used to contain Peterborough, but no longer does so (except for some ceremonial purposes) as that is now a unitary authority. However, the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough now also has a Combined Authority headed by a directly elected mayor. Although, unlike in London for example, said mayor does not double up as the Police and Crime Commissioner, and so an entirely separate directly elected official occupies that post, despite the Combined Authority and Police Force areas being identical in this instance.
It can all seem rather opaque.
And people wonder where the Defund the Police movement has come from.
My sense is that Americans get rather more voices touting Trump's achievements than the vainglorious Twitter feed of the man himself that we get. So you've got quite a strong degree of covering fire in the USA to come out for Trump - more than in 2016.
If you're still a somewhat shy fan of the man you can also run the argument, "I don't like his tweets and some of his behaviour any more than you... but you can't argue with the Dow Jones numbers, so I will hold my nose and vote for him". You can say that even if, secretly, you are attracted by the race-baiting and so on more than the economic stuff. That wasn't an option in 2016 as he wasn't running on a political record.
So they must be important.
Are they, or aren't they?
In the lushly forested mountains (where they ski in winter) they slow-cook the milk-fed lamb, five miles away, down by the sea, they serve up red mullet, straight off the boat. The fishing boats actually tie up by the tavernas. The fishwives hang the fresh octopus from washing lines to dry, like in a TV documentary of Mediterranean life in the 1950s.
And it is QUIET. I thought this was Covid, of course, but the other day I met a British couple who’ve been coming here 20 years. I asked them about the lovely tranquility, such a pleasant change, blah blah. They said ‘oh no, it’s always like this, please don’t tell anyone.’
Get over yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olXipfCKUoo
Since expertise in trade doesn't seem to be a requirement, but agreeing with the aims and objectives of the government does, then what constructive "advice" will they be able to proffer?
Other than Good Show, chaps, keep it going.
Having spent the last few years away from Romford, it's really obvious that Greater Yorkshire works as an emotionally coherent entity. No, it shouldn't have an independent army (they'd enjoy it too much) but it's more than a canton. Similarly England-north-of-Yorkshire. And the lands west of the Pennines. And the midlands. And the sticky-out bits of East Anglia and South West.
OK, that leaves a rough quadrilateral, say Bournemouth - Oxford - Chelmsford and points south and east, which are a sprawl, mostly looking towards London but not London.
Maybe it shouldn't be done. But for most of England, it's not mad.
Toby chose to be a deliberate contraversialist. Fine as a journalist, just incompatable with many public positions. He made his bed.
With the possible exception of Yorkshire, there is no particular desire for regional governance in England, and the regions themselves would mostly be woolly and ill-defined. Cumbria probably doesn't contain enough people to count as an entire region on its own, so does it get lumped in with the North-West, or with the Far North? Where does the West Country begin and end? Or the East of England? Or the South-East?
In most of the country, these overarching structures are unnecessary. What would probably work best is wholesale unitarisation, with a fairly wide population range between the smallest and largest authorities to allow them to be adapted to local circumstances and fitted to historic county boundaries, with an overarching Mayor-and-Assembly structure for the largest conurbations (Greater London, Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester.)
A plethora of competing regions, one and two-tiered council structures, combined authorities and metro-mayors with all sorts of different ranges of powers makes little sense.
This one looks as though it might have a useful role - for example, Tony Abbott would probably be quite a good source of advice on potential trade links with the Pacific rim countries, and he no doubt has some useful contacts.
But, it's really not a big deal.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-rhetoric-protests-detrimental-majority-americans-poll/story?id=72806089
Yes, obviously. There are also shy Biden voters. If you live in rural Alabama, and go to an evangelical Church, and hang out with people who think Biden is going to take away your guns, then you probably don't announce it out loud.
Fortunately, we have examples of other "socially unacceptable" views, and people being unwilling to admit having them.
The EU referendum is a classic example. Many people didn't want to be seen as "a little Englander", and would say to pollsters that they planned to vote Remain, when actually they were going to vote Leave.
People are much more willing to admit to socially unacceptable views to machines than to human beings. It's why live telephone polls for the EU referendum showed 10 to 15 point leads for Remain, while on-line and automated voice response polls, showed it as a dead head or a small lead for Leave.
So. Let's look at the polls, and see if there is a big difference between phone and on-line pollsters.
USC (which interestingly got 2016 pretty much spot on) uses an on-line panel of 8,000 voters, and surveys one fourteenth of them every day to create a moving tracking poll. It has Biden at 52%. YouGov (which is also an on-line poll) shows Biden at 51%.
It's hard therefore to say that on-line pollsters are giving very different results to live pollsters.
IBD/TIPP - which also did great in 2016 - offers up some of the best evidence for shy Trumpers. From their latest report: "20% of registered voters say they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate, but that rises to 28% among independents. Among registered independents, 24% say they agree with Trump on some issues but are reluctant to admit that in public."
So, all in all, the evidence is mixed. That on-line pollsters don't give better results for Trump should be a source of concern for him. That some voters admit that they're uncomfortable revealing their preferred candidate is an opportunity.
Housing, left behind areas, regional inequalities, over reliance on service industries and Scotland just off the top of my head.
Ironically many of which the Tories just won a majority promising to sort out.
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1301933103011815430?s=19
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1301933797664010240
Unfortunately there is no sign of the PM choosing anything. He's as bad as Gordon Brown in that respect. Perhaps even worse - at least Gordon Brown spent much effort dithering over his non-decisions; Boris doesn't even seem to realise he needs to make decisions.
You're most welcome.
Much more serious tone that his other stuff.
Woke doesn't mean "people you don't like".
If you do that in a creative and surprising way there is much scope to bring the house down.
Women will kick him out, I think. I have great faith in this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
Ever wondered why the quality of people we get in public life is generally so crap and banal?
That's why.
Ordinarily I hate the winter. But this year? Let's get on with it so we can leave 2020 behind.
In the last two weeks, in between swims and grilled sardines, I’ve been watching this fresh madness in America.
Two weeks ago I would have given Trump a 10% chance of winning. Now I’d say it’s nearer to 30% or even 40%
The Democrats have lost control of this latest culture war, yet are helplessly associated with the worst aspects of it. That’s not good. They need it to stop.
Now, after that, does Cheshire get lumped in with Lancashire or with some sort of North Midlands entity? Or perhaps with the Welsh Marches? Or the West Midlands? Actually, if we have a West Midlands then should that encompass the whole current statistical region, or should there be separate governments for Greater Birmingham and for the wider region outwith it?
What do we do with the West Country? Again, Cornwall is too small to be a region, but does it have the get-out clause of demanding to be hived off as an entirely separate Celtic country? Failing that, does it end up as an appendage of a Devonwall thing, or an even larger thing featuring Somerset and Dorset, or an even bigger thing than that including Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire? Or, perhaps, should the latter three be folded into a South Midlands region, or a Wessex thingy, and where ought that to begin and end? That, in turn, brings us to the tremendous question of how many pieces to break the Home Counties up into, and in what precise configuration, which impinges on the extent of the East of England or East Anglia thing, whatever that ends up being.
This is not just an orbit of London issue - there simply aren't that many clear and obvious regional or provincial Government areas, save for Greater London and Yorkshire restored to pre-1974 boundaries. The rest of it is probably going to end up being artificial - and the argument that we shouldn't have anything between about eight and twelve new governments and parliaments - which, to return to what (I think) was the original point, would be needed to create a federal system with roughly Scotland- or Wales-sized states - still stands.
England is a single nation of relatively modest territorial extent. Effective local government is called for, not a collection of mostly contrived regions.
First, that would never happen here. And second Trump is the perfect c**t so it seems to play into everyone's concerns of the police over there.
Whatever problems we have over here they really aren't remotely comparable to the seven shades of weird shit they have in America.
It's convected sociological bollocks.
Some of Trump's policies and the positions of the Republican Party I agree with.
But he's a stratospheric tw*t and an evil c**t.
So I'd never vote for him.
This year will be a tough winter, but it needn't be completely without joys.
Biden is sane and not represented by the extreme idiots that get highlighted, unlike Sanders.
I could have also voted if I were an American for McCain and Romney . . . and if either of them had won, then I don't think Trump would have ever made it.
A vote for Biden is a vote to get rid of Trump and a vote not to have the extremists on the Democrat side either. If Biden loses then next time the Democratic nominee could be someone on the lines of Sanders and AOC, and they could actually win like Trump did.
A vote for Biden is a vote for sanity. In both the GOP and the Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/biden-qanon-bizarre-embarrassing-409090
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden denounced the QAnon conspiracy theory as "dangerous" and "embarrassing" Friday, suggesting those that support it should seek mental health treatment.
"I've been a big supporter of mental health," Biden said. "I'd recommend the people who believe it maybe should take advantage, while it still exists, of the Affordable Care Act."...
If a cluster of counties want to form a region, let them. Have a process where they justify the degree of devolution. If any counties can't be bothered, they can stay under Whitehall control.
It's asymmetric, illogical and it works.
But you know what I mean. Great comedy often reveals something that once revealed makes you wonder how you could have missed it before.
Think about some of what has done it for you over the years and I bet you see this is right.
Course there's always room for slapstick and bawdy belly laughs etc too. Cooper. Hill.
NEW THREAD
Ultimately, what matters is process not people. So while I think Biden will be a poor President...
He will not further damage the American system of government. He will respect the separation of powers in the constitution. He won't continually attempt to circumvent Congress via Executive Orders. He won't deliberately forment division for electoral purposes. He won't mix his personal business and his the business of the Head of State. He won't claim that he could shoot someone in Park Avenue and it wouldn't be illegal. He won't blithely accept the word of foreign leaders over his own intelligence services. And he won't repeatedly and blatantly lie.
This is not about "extremists". There is a lot I agree with Trump on: I think the US has done a terrible job at looking after its manufacturing base, and dealing with the consequences of globalisation. I think it's failed to make it so that people are encouraged to play by the rules for immigration.
But the Presidency is not an Imperial role. I've always said "better a good system than a great person". And Trump isn't even a great person. What he is is someone who is undermining the very systems that make America great.