Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
There is so much difference between ancient world slavery and the slave trade that moral arguments about the one don't really transfer to the other. Ancient world slavery was very largely about solving the problem of people who were already there, as prisoners of war and bankrupt peasants and whatever, and was an alternative to putting them to death or letting them starve. Voluntarily making a long journey from continent A to continent B to take slaves from B on a further long voyage to continent C, purely for the money, is a different ballgame altogether.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
The Old Testament strongly encourages slavery and allowing the beating up and killing of slaves. The New Testament isn't as bad but still instructs tells slaves to obey their masters with "fear", cruel slave owners not just kind ones.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ
Maybe we could just agree that the Bible is a product of its time and that we should leave it in the past where it belongs? That our morals have evolved beyond "not coveting our neighbours slaves" or 'obey your masters with fear, cruel masters as well as kind ones'.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
You know it is kind of hard to predict what is likely to become acceptable again, but here's a possible.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier. So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Authoritarian government?
Yes, that is eyeing a major comeback for sure. And I suppose if it is of the right wing national populist variety then it clears the way for certain social nasties too that we'd hoped and assumed we were saying the long goodbye to.
But I'm just so so optimistic on this front. I think 3/11 will be massive and will come to mark the turning of the tide.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
The Old Testament strongly encourages slavery and allowing the beating up and killing of slaves. The New Testament isn't as bad but still instructs tells slaves to obey their masters with "fear", cruel slave owners not just kind ones.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ
Maybe we could just agree that the Bible is a product of its time and that we should leave it in the past where it belongs? That our morals have evolved beyond "not coveting our neighbours slaves" or 'obey your masters with fear, cruel masters as well as kind ones'.
Unless you are a Protestant evangelical Christian, a very conservative Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Jew (in relation to the Old Testament) then most Christians and Jews don't take the Bible literally on every word.
The same applies to more liberal Muslims and the Koran
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
You know it is kind of hard to predict what is likely to become acceptable again, but here's a possible.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier. So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
Using masculine forms where a person of unspecified gender is spoken of or for plurals denoting a mix of genders is a historic Indo-European usage, so we'd really be going back to the future on that one.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
The Old Testament strongly encourages slavery and allowing the beating up and killing of slaves. The New Testament isn't as bad but still instructs tells slaves to obey their masters with "fear", cruel slave owners not just kind ones.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ
Maybe we could just agree that the Bible is a product of its time and that we should leave it in the past where it belongs? That our morals have evolved beyond "not coveting our neighbours slaves" or 'obey your masters with fear, cruel masters as well as kind ones'.
Unless you are a Protestant evangelical Christian, a very conservative Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Jew (in relation to the Old Testament) then most Christians and Jews don't take the bible literally on every word.
It would be impossible to do so, because so much of it is contradictory. People just cherrypick the elements that they care about and junk the rest.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
The Daily Mail, has always had a soft spot for it, and Sun editorials are very enthusiastic if the offence is child, treason or terrorism related.
Johnson doesn't believe in the restoration of capital punishment, but then he didn't really believe in Brexit either.
Lots of people have no problem in principle - there are a good number of people who richly deserve the death penalty after all. It is the practical outworking of it which renders it more or less impossible, both in terms of the vagaries and uncertainties of justice and the mechanics of its operation.
I would much rather the state avoided killing people irrespective of how heinous the crime. Do what one will to them throughout the entirity of their full life sentence,if one must, but if there is ever found to be a miscarriage of justice reparations can be made.
As the parent of an autistic child the case of Stefan Kishko gives me sleepless nights. Clearly an oddball, quite likely autistic, eager to please and some very dodgy coppers. An obvious candidate for Mr Pierpoint, but low and behold as it turned out, as innocent as a summer's day is long.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
You are expecting a lot for people here to know Kölsch! Even I hadn't realised "Veedel" means "Viertel"="local area", I thought it was the name of your SPD candidate!
So do you get to vote at two levels on one day? Cologne City and local area? In Berlin we have one strata less, because the City level is also the state level.
Edit to ask: Do you think the SPD will do better than they have done recently in NRW?
To answer the question of the previous thread, the probability of an EC tie given by the models is 0.475% (538), 0.3975% (Economist). So you'd want something north of 200/1.
Thanks Richard. Trump has had a few half-decent polls in the last 48 hours, including a -5 in a 'National' from Fox. When this has happened before it's invariably been followed by a few strong polls for Biden, so no need for anybody to get excited, but I expect the next price move will be a slight shortening of the Donald's price.
I do not believe the market is moving in response to polls. I believe the market is moving in response to pundits. . If you predict what utterly trivial thing the beltway media will focus on next you can predict the market movements.
Well I should think a couple of cops being wounded will shift the market.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
The Old Testament strongly encourages slavery and allowing the beating up and killing of slaves. The New Testament isn't as bad but still instructs tells slaves to obey their masters with "fear", cruel slave owners not just kind ones.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ
Maybe we could just agree that the Bible is a product of its time and that we should leave it in the past where it belongs? That our morals have evolved beyond "not coveting our neighbours slaves" or 'obey your masters with fear, cruel masters as well as kind ones'.
Unless you are a Protestant evangelical Christian, a very conservative Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Jew (in relation to the Old Testament) then most Christians and Jews don't take the bible literally on every word.
It would be impossible to do so, because so much of it is contradictory. People just cherrypick the elements that they care about and junk the rest.
In wonder if the history of religious practice is a little more complicated than that. Nice idea though.
If this bill is ever passed (can't see it getting through the Lords in time) could Gina Miller do us a favour and get the courts on the case.
If this bill is passed then the Miller case will be precedent as to why it is lawful.
No it isn’t.
BTW I finally read the Wolfson article you keep referring to. It is embarrassingly shallow and naive and does not really contain any legal argument. In my view it misses the point. Parliament can pass a domestic law. No-one disputes that. But what it cannot do in doing so is ignore its other legal obligations, however they arise. The proposed Bill even explicitly recognises that because it is introduced by saying, as currently, required that it is compliant with the HRA, which implements the ECHR. Though of course the government is legally obliged to comply with the ECHR regardless of the HRA. (Arguably it isn’t because of the very wide effect of the proposed clause 45g - but that is another argument.)
IMO it It is misleading to talk about domestic law and international law as if they were two completely different things, with one being optional and only relevant to government. There is law - which comes from a range of sources: statute, cases, even actions (see the original basis of estoppel, for instance), contracts, international agreements, treaties, decisions of foreign courts, arbitration rulings etc.
The courts when ruling on complicated questions will do their best to reconcile apparently conflicting statutes or apparent conflicts between statute an international obligations, on the assumption that governments do not intend to breach either of these. If this legislation does does end up before the courts, I would not be surprised to find that there may be a way in which it could be interpreted so as to make it in compliance with the government’s international legal obligations.
But this has been made much more difficult (perhaps intentionally?) by Brandon Lewis’s statement.There used to be a rule that the courts could not consider statements made in the Commons about what a law means. But that rule went a while ago.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
You know it is kind of hard to predict what is likely to become acceptable again, but here's a possible.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier. So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
That's wrong with "their"? "Their" is fine, or simply re-write a sentence so it does not require a gendered pronoun. That's the Government guidance for writing statute anyway.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
Record turnout apparently, despite (?) coronavirus. Over 45%. First exit poll suggests Henriette Reker has just failed to get 50% so there will probably be a runoff
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
So if we have a second referendum in the next 10 years or so ie a generation but not now, No could still win thanks to over 65s and over 55s thus setting the issue for good as the second referendum in Quebec settled it there. After that the younger generation in the UK will also be older and closer to a majority and pushing a softer EEA style Brexit the whole UK could support
Lol. STV can't even illustrate their story with a picture of the David Hume tower. They have used a stock picture of Old College. I wonder how long Hume's statue will last on the Lawnmarket.
I see you have become brief. This is in response to recent criticisms?
I will attempt to follow your example.
I like what you say.
That's it.
Kind regards.
PtP on behalf of PaP [Posters against Prolixity]
No.
No argument is needed. What Ministers say damns them without more.
Show and Tell - my new motto.
It does indeed damn them, and i thought the former Carmarthenshire County Councillor was a decent chap. One lives and learns.
Some more Buckland quotes to enjoy:
1. His oath of office - “I, ....name....., do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
3. “Like them, I am before you today, and I have sworn an Oath that I will defend the independence of the judiciary and respect the rule of law. It is the safeguard of fairness and freedom in our society, providing for important principles like equality under the law and access to justice. And for me, this has far more than formal relevance.”
And
4. “I saw the importance of the separation of the branches of the State and the role of the law officers in ensuring that the Government respects and upholds the rule of law“.
Words and solemn oaths mean nothing these days, not when there’s money to be made, offices to hold on to and arses to be licked.
Lol. STV can't even illustrate their story with a picture of the David Hume tower. They have used a stock picture of Old College. I wonder how long Hume's statue will last on the Lawnmarket.
That headline is really something else:
"Edinburgh Uni renames David Hume tower over ‘racist views’"
makes it sound as if the tower gazes out over a sight that is particularly racist...
... or that the inanimate object has been known to express itself in an un-PC fashion.
One thing that occurs to me about all of this quarantine stuff is that we should probably stop inflicting infected British tourists in countries who have lower rates than the UK. The lack of international coordination on this subject has been absolutely lamentable.
Every country has its own set of rules which are slightly different and each country records new case numbers and deaths differently as well meaning that there is no single source of truth. That in itself is leading to more transmission IMO as tourists are piling into areas where there is high incidence of the virus and then spreading it as they come back.
If there was a non-emotionally and non-politically charged system to close areas to new tourists across Europe when the incidence becomes high it would prevent a lot of community transmission IMO and force companies in those areas to act more responsibly rather than keep clubs and bars open.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
You are expecting a lot for people here to know Kölsch! Even I hadn't realised "Veedel" means "Viertel"="local area", I thought it was the name of your SPD candidate!
So do you get to vote at two levels on one day? Cologne City and local area? In Berlin we have one strata less, because the City level is also the state level.
Edit to ask: Do you think the SPD will do better than they have done recently in NRW?
Tbh I don't really understand who is responsible for what, but neither do any of the locals I've asked. I actually got 4 different votes. 1 for mayor of cologne, one for the local mayor, one for the local representative to the district council, and one for the Integrationsrat.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Why "inside edge"? The LBW law applies to it hitting any part of the bat. It's just that the inside edge then pad happens more ofthen than middle of the bat then pad.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
You are expecting a lot for people here to know Kölsch! Even I hadn't realised "Veedel" means "Viertel"="local area", I thought it was the name of your SPD candidate!
So do you get to vote at two levels on one day? Cologne City and local area? In Berlin we have one strata less, because the City level is also the state level.
Edit to ask: Do you think the SPD will do better than they have done recently in NRW?
Tbh I don't really understand who is responsible for what, but neither do any of the locals I've asked. I actually got 4 different votes. 1 for mayor of cologne, one for the local mayor, one for the local representative to the district council, and one for the Integrationsrat.
Not sure how the SPD are doing comparatively
I only get the Integrationsrat vote because I'm an immigrant, I think, so we get more votes than the non-immigrants
If this bill is ever passed (can't see it getting through the Lords in time) could Gina Miller do us a favour and get the courts on the case.
If this bill is passed then the Miller case will be precedent as to why it is lawful.
No it isn’t.
BTW I finally read the Wolfson article you keep referring to. It is embarrassingly shallow and naive and does not really contain any legal argument. In my view it misses the point. Parliament can pass a domestic law. No-one disputes that. But what it cannot do in doing so is ignore its other legal obligations, however they arise. The proposed Bill even explicitly recognises that because it is introduced by saying, as currently, required that it is compliant with the HRA, which implements the ECHR. Though of course the government is legally obliged to comply with the ECHR regardless of the HRA. (Arguably it isn’t because of the very wide effect of the proposed clause 45g - but that is another argument.)
IMO it It is misleading to talk about domestic law and international law as if they were two completely different things, with one being optional and only relevant to government. There is law - which comes from a range of sources: statute, cases, even actions (see the original basis of estoppel, for instance), contracts, international agreements, treaties, decisions of foreign courts, arbitration rulings etc.
The courts when ruling on complicated questions will do their best to reconcile apparently conflicting statutes or apparent conflicts between statute an international obligations, on the assumption that governments do not intend to breach either of these. If this legislation does does end up before the courts, I would not be surprised to find that there may be a way in which it could be interpreted so as to make it in compliance with the government’s international legal obligations.
But this has been made much more difficult (perhaps intentionally?) by Brandon Lewis’s statement.There used to be a rule that the courts could not consider statements made in the Commons about what a law means. But that rule went a while ago.
Yes, I think they have confected the row. It smells like last summer.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
You are expecting a lot for people here to know Kölsch! Even I hadn't realised "Veedel" means "Viertel"="local area", I thought it was the name of your SPD candidate!
So do you get to vote at two levels on one day? Cologne City and local area? In Berlin we have one strata less, because the City level is also the state level.
Edit to ask: Do you think the SPD will do better than they have done recently in NRW?
Tbh I don't really understand who is responsible for what, but neither do any of the locals I've asked. I actually got 4 different votes. 1 for mayor of cologne, one for the local mayor, one for the local representative to the district council, and one for the Integrationsrat.
Not sure how the SPD are doing comparatively
Next year is the big one in German politics for me, personally. The first time I'm eligible to vote in the Bundestag election and the Berlin parliament election.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
"Minnesota nice" is a thing. They pride themselves on being polite, courteous and avoid confrontation. Not sure if that has any bearing. But it certainly doesn't fit with the President.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
The Daily Mail, has always had a soft spot for it, and Sun editorials are very enthusiastic if the offence is child, treason or terrorism related.
Johnson doesn't believe in the restoration of capital punishment, but then he didn't really believe in Brexit either.
Lots of people have no problem in principle - there are a good number of people who richly deserve the death penalty after all. It is the practical outworking of it which renders it more or less impossible, both in terms of the vagaries and uncertainties of justice and the mechanics of its operation.
I would much rather the state avoided killing people irrespective of how heinous the crime. Do what one will to them throughout the entirity of their full life sentence,if one must, but if there is ever found to be a miscarriage of justice reparations can be made.
As the parent of an autistic child the case of Stefan Kishko gives me sleepless nights. Clearly an oddball, quite likely autistic, eager to please and some very dodgy coppers. An obvious candidate for Mr Pierpoint, but low and behold as it turned out, as innocent as a summer's day is long.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
Minnesota has not voted Republican since 1972, even Reagan did not win Minnesota, that is why. Along with Massachussetts, which Reagan did win but which was the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972 and has not voted Republican since 1984 for President, it should be as close to a Democrat safe state as you can get.
I would say New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000 or Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and where Biden now has a smaller poll lead than Minnesota are more likely Trump pickups if he gains any states
I see you have become brief. This is in response to recent criticisms?
I will attempt to follow your example.
I like what you say.
That's it.
Kind regards.
PtP on behalf of PaP [Posters against Prolixity]
No.
No argument is needed. What Ministers say damns them without more.
Show and Tell - my new motto.
It does indeed damn them, and i thought the former Carmarthenshire County Councillor was a decent chap. One lives and learns.
Some more Buckland quotes to enjoy:
1. His oath of office - “I, ....name....., do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
3. “Like them, I am before you today, and I have sworn an Oath that I will defend the independence of the judiciary and respect the rule of law. It is the safeguard of fairness and freedom in our society, providing for important principles like equality under the law and access to justice. And for me, this has far more than formal relevance.”
And
4. “I saw the importance of the separation of the branches of the State and the role of the law officers in ensuring that the Government respects and upholds the rule of law“.
Words and solemn oaths mean nothing these days, not when there’s money to be made, offices to hold on to and arses to be licked.
Johnson and his chums are sooo popular they can do some really eye watering stuff...and get clean away with it.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
They let in Richard Burgon.
Just goes to show what a Fen Poly education will do to you.....
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
You know it is kind of hard to predict what is likely to become acceptable again, but here's a possible.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier. So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
I wonder if we'll have a single global language one day. Or some sort of universal embedded-in-the-jawbone instant translator that amounts to the same thing. Imagine no communications mishaps when holidaying in foreign climes. It's easy if you try.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
On the rule of 6 it was Sturgeon following Boris' lead and not the reverse
Not quite - very different handling of small children (a major issue with Mr Johonson-Cummings's version). Looks as if Mr J-C will do a U tyurn to follow the Scots.
In reality the original basic idea would have come from the joint science committees anyway.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
It is hard to claim Minnesota as a swing state. The last time they voted Republican was for Nixon in 1972, when McGovern won just two "states" Mass, and DC.
Even in Regan's land slide in 1984 they voted for Mondale.
Edit: Apologies to HYUFD who posted more or less the same thing while I was writing.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
No it isn't, Quebec's second referendum on independence from Canada was in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 and roughly a generation later. No won narrowly 51% to 49% and there has been no further referendum since.
On the same timeframe indyref2 will happen and be allowed by Westminster in 2029 and most over 65s will still be alive then let alone most 55 to 65s and able to still vote No
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It's more that the crossover point with age has shifted upwards somewhat - but aslso that the youngsters are now much more emphatically pro-indy. Compare with this very different (and bimodal) pattern:
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Lol. STV can't even illustrate their story with a picture of the David Hume tower. They have used a stock picture of Old College. I wonder how long Hume's statue will last on the Lawnmarket.
In the spirit of PB pedantry, I should gently point out that the statue is on the High Street (though at its Lawnmarket end!). But for better or worse the statue is not in the charge of the Uni.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
You know it is kind of hard to predict what is likely to become acceptable again, but here's a possible.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier. So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
I wonder if we'll have a single global language one day. Or some sort of universal embedded-in-the-jawbone instant translator that amounts to the same thing. Imagine no communications mishaps when holidaying in foreign climes. It's easy if you try.
I suggest it will be Mandarin. With a phonetic script, probably ours, without tones. Simple to learn as a second language. Certainly in comparison with English.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've been hearing for over 40 years that "the Tories will die out".....
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Brexit is complicated by the factor that the EU becoming a nation state if we remained in it is a radical option.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
And "The Siege of Krishnapur" - set in the Indian Mutiny/First War of Independence - all three well worth a read.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
And "The Siege of Krishnapur" - set in the Indian Mutiny/First War of Independence - all three well worth a read.
Oh yes! How could I forget that? It's in the bookcase too, somewhere.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've been hearing for over 40 years that "the Tories will die out".....
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Though the way things are going in Whitehall I'm not sure your comments on the Brexit situation won't also apply to Scotland.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
18-25 year olds voted Remain 71-29%. Obviously you lot didn't put much graft in with the people most likely to have to deal with the consequences of Brexit.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Evening. Suddenly realise sun is over yardarm. Going down to investigate a cleanskin bottle of Aussie red ... pheasant breast, french beans and my wife's grown potatoes for dinner.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
18-25 year olds voted Remain 71-29%. Obviously you lot didn't put much graft in with the people most likely to have to deal with the consequences of Brexit.
Because Brexit wasn't the radical option. Remain was.
Being in favour of a European superstate was a radical idealist idea, like Yes to Scottish independence.
Being in favour of the UK as the nation state is the conservative idea, like No to Scottish independence.
Evening. Suddenly realise sun is over yardarm. Going down to investigate a cleanskin bottle of Aussie red ... pheasant breast, french beans and my wife's grown potatoes for dinner.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
Indeed plus never forget in 1997 Blair even won over 65s, now over 65s vote Tory by a huge margin while in 1983 Thatcher won under 25s while under 25s now vote Labour by a huge margin
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Perhaps a bit late to suggest it as it has already happened, but one of the bellwethers of Brexit-related cultural clashes to me was when an English friend in Devon commented to me about 2009-11 about the way in which racialist chatter had suddenly become more acceptable in the local yacht/golf/etc clubs - middle class circles. He was evidently quite struck by it.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Though the way things are going in Whitehall I'm not sure your comments on the Brexit situation won't also apply to Scotland.
True enough. Being anywhere in the orbit of Johnson & Co is high risk for sure.
Evening. Suddenly realise sun is over yardarm. Going down to investigate a cleanskin bottle of Aussie red ... pheasant breast, french beans and my wife's grown potatoes for dinner.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
It's a bit of a sliding scale one, isn't it? Technically it's not available on demand here, though in practice it is. But there is a time limit, which some think should be lowered (although someone said that it needs to be what it is as certain things don't show up until that point). I doubt anyone thinks it should be longer.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Brexit is complicated by the factor that the EU becoming a nation state if we remained in it is a radical option.
Just say "Good point, Kinabalu, I hadn't thought of it that way."
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Brexit is complicated by the factor that the EU becoming a nation state if we remained in it is a radical option.
Just say "Good point, Kinabalu, I hadn't thought of it that way."
Won't kill you.
I look forward to the day you make a good point enabling me to say that.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
It's a bit of a sliding scale one, isn't it? Technically it's not available on demand here, though in practice it is. But there is a time limit, which some think should be lowered (although someone said that it needs to be what it is as certain things don't show up until that point). I doubt anyone thinks it should be longer.
Yes, I could envisage a slight shifting towards more restrictions. But nothing more than that.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
I happened to hear Front Row previewing it last week, and the actor Daniel York Loh (who had read the book) was mainly critical of the production exacerbating the 1970s male mindset of the book (which since it was written by a male in the 1970s is hardly surprising) rather than the book itself. He was particularly irritated by a Bertie Woosterish sensibility and whimsical soundtrack as I recall.
I'll watch with interest but there's been a turgid feel to UK historical tv dramas for a while, exemplified by Stephen Poliakoff's guff. If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Perhaps a bit late to suggest it as it has already happened, but one of the bellwethers of Brexit-related cultural clashes to me was when an English friend in Devon commented to me about 2009-11 about the way in which racialist chatter had suddenly become more acceptable in the local yacht/golf/etc clubs - middle class circles. He was evidently quite struck by it.
This is my biggest objection to Brexit and Trump. For me the cultural regression that these two "movements" at the same time embody and feed is more important than the policy and geopolitical stuff.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
Comments
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ
Maybe we could just agree that the Bible is a product of its time and that we should leave it in the past where it belongs? That our morals have evolved beyond "not coveting our neighbours slaves" or 'obey your masters with fear, cruel masters as well as kind ones'.
In language, we go to using just the male form when the sex of a person is unknown, simply because it is easier.
So instead of the ugly "his/her" or the singular "their", people just use "his" and everyone knows it could mean "his or her". English has done quite well ar finding neutral versions eg. "chair" instead of "chairman", but this is a never ending issue in many European languages, where almost everything to do with humans uses different words for men and women.
But I'm just so so optimistic on this front. I think 3/11 will be massive and will come to mark the turning of the tide.
Probably not enough, but at least possible now.
The same applies to more liberal Muslims and the Koran
As the parent of an autistic child the case of Stefan Kishko gives me sleepless nights. Clearly an oddball, quite likely autistic, eager to please and some very dodgy coppers. An obvious candidate for Mr Pierpoint, but low and behold as it turned out, as innocent as a summer's day is long.
So do you get to vote at two levels on one day? Cologne City and local area?
In Berlin we have one strata less, because the City level is also the state level.
Edit to ask: Do you think the SPD will do better than they have done recently in NRW?
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16%
25-34 YES = 75% NO=25%
35-44 YES = 57% NO =43%
45-54 YES = 52% NO =48%
55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55%
65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
BTW I finally read the Wolfson article you keep referring to. It is embarrassingly shallow and naive and does not really contain any legal argument. In my view it misses the point. Parliament can pass a domestic law. No-one disputes that. But what it cannot do in doing so is ignore its other legal obligations, however they arise. The proposed Bill even explicitly recognises that because it is introduced by saying, as currently, required that it is compliant with the HRA, which implements the ECHR. Though of course the government is legally obliged to comply with the ECHR regardless of the HRA. (Arguably it isn’t because of the very wide effect of the proposed clause 45g - but that is another argument.)
IMO it It is misleading to talk about domestic law and international law as if they were two completely different things, with one being optional and only relevant to government. There is law - which comes from a range of sources: statute, cases, even actions (see the original basis of estoppel, for instance), contracts, international agreements, treaties, decisions of foreign courts, arbitration rulings etc.
The courts when ruling on complicated questions will do their best to reconcile apparently conflicting statutes or apparent conflicts between statute an international obligations, on the assumption that governments do not intend to breach either of these. If this legislation does does end up before the courts, I would not be surprised to find that there may be a way in which it could be interpreted so as to make it in compliance with the government’s international legal obligations.
But this has been made much more difficult (perhaps intentionally?) by Brandon Lewis’s statement.There used to be a rule that the courts could not consider statements made in the Commons about what a law means. But that rule went a while ago.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1305176410357669888
First exit poll suggests Henriette Reker has just failed to get 50% so there will probably be a runoff
I wonder what our Rochdale thinks of this?
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/geeta-sidhu-robb-jack-straw-jew
1. His oath of office - “I, ....name....., do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
2. And here is the speech which he gave on becoming Lord Chancellor - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/lord-chancellor-swearing-in-speech-robert-buckland-qc.
I particularly like these lines:-
3. “Like them, I am before you today, and I have sworn an Oath that I will defend the independence of the judiciary and respect the rule of law. It is the safeguard of fairness and freedom in our society, providing for important principles like equality under the law and access to justice. And for me, this has far more than formal relevance.”
And
4. “I saw the importance of the separation of the branches of the State and the role of the law officers in ensuring that the Government respects and upholds the rule of law“.
Words and solemn oaths mean nothing these days, not when there’s money to be made, offices to hold on to and arses to be licked.
That headline is really something else:
"Edinburgh Uni renames David Hume tower over ‘racist views’"
makes it sound as if the tower gazes out over a sight that is particularly racist...
... or that the inanimate object has been known to express itself in an un-PC fashion.
Every country has its own set of rules which are slightly different and each country records new case numbers and deaths differently as well meaning that there is no single source of truth. That in itself is leading to more transmission IMO as tourists are piling into areas where there is high incidence of the virus and then spreading it as they come back.
If there was a non-emotionally and non-politically charged system to close areas to new tourists across Europe when the incidence becomes high it would prevent a lot of community transmission IMO and force companies in those areas to act more responsibly rather than keep clubs and bars open.
Not sure how the SPD are doing comparatively
Why "inside edge"? The LBW law applies to it hitting any part of the bat. It's just that the inside edge then pad happens more ofthen than middle of the bat then pad.
Not sure if that has any bearing. But it certainly doesn't fit with the President.
I would say New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000 or Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and where Biden now has a smaller poll lead than Minnesota are more likely Trump pickups if he gains any states
No. Not that one!
https://twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1305137135075364866?s=21
In reality the original basic idea would have come from the joint science committees anyway.
Even in Regan's land slide in 1984 they voted for Mondale.
Edit: Apologies to HYUFD who posted more or less the same thing while I was writing.
On the same timeframe indyref2 will happen and be allowed by Westminster in 2029 and most over 65s will still be alive then let alone most 55 to 65s and able to still vote No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54085249
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1305138507820797961?s=20
Simple to learn as a second language. Certainly in comparison with English.
Also:
https://twitter.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1305130998838026240?s=20
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Being in favour of a European superstate was a radical idealist idea, like Yes to Scottish independence.
Being in favour of the UK as the nation state is the conservative idea, like No to Scottish independence.
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance?
and
(2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
Won't kill you.
I'll watch with interest but there's been a turgid feel to UK historical tv dramas for a while, exemplified by Stephen Poliakoff's guff. If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
All he needs is time and support.
I hope Moshiri realises how lucky he is, and doesn't get trigger happy if you go through a rough patch.
Sacking four managers in three years is like Watford.