I find the PR system used in Scotland (and Wales) a bit weird. It’s a kind of FPTP system masquerading as PR.
In effect it gives dominance to the leading party, which I guess Labour assumed would only ever be itself.
Not sure I agree with that. The dominant party can do better than their share of the vote by winning a lot of the constituencies but they are then penalised on the list vote so that other parties get a voice and the Parliament is more representative, if not precisely so. I think its better than the Westminster system to be honest. What it didn't foresee was a situation where around half of the population voted for 1 party because of 1 policy.
I certainly agree that Labour assumed that they would dominate it. I remember Donald Dewar explaining that every single councillor in his seat, and at that time there were 2 layers district and regional, was held by Labour. Changed days indeed.
Electoral systems are quite boring...but the allocation of list seats according to regional party votes effectively overly privileges the leading national party.
In NZ, if Labour Party win 50% of the vote they end up with 50% of the seats. As just happened.
Whereas in 2016, the SNP won 42% of the list vote but ended with 49% of the seats...
Yes but if we had had FPTP they would have ended up with a lot more.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Umm... the capital of Wessex wouldn’t be in Wessex under your plan... like Kansas City being in Missouri.
And London shouldn’t include the commuter towns because they have very different interests
He asked for an assessment of options. He decided not to attack. Everything else is conjecture and positioning
So far, at least, he has been one of the least belligerent US Presidents in recent times, certainly since 9/11,
Yes. Maybe there’s some like d of global prize he could get? A prize for not fighting wars?
Maybe Obama, the drone warrior, could lend him one?
He didn't really start any wars it's true and it's one reason why his term didn't work out as bad as people like me feared.
His actions in respect of the Turkish Kurds was however appalling and likely to have extensive long-term ramifications. His so-called Middle East initiative is another example of making a bad situation worse.
But he didn't start a nuclear war (yet) so judging by that exceptionally low standard you have to say his foreign policy was not too bad.
Yes - the middle east "peace" is about giving the nod to the locals ganging up on a hated local - Iran. That will end well. Not.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
Sadly more and more Americans get their news through the prism of extremely biased sources without even the pretence of objectivity. Most Trump supporters likely believe Trump has a genuine case about issues with the election, for example.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
Would Trump's doing that finally put an end to his support in the GOP, outside a lunatic fringe. If the party had no power bases, for a couple of years at least, in Washington the top brass would be mightily miffed!
Trump doesn't give a stuff about the GoP, and never has. I'm not sure when exactly he quits, but the effect on the GoP will not be one of his considerations (unless they offer him some sort of massive bribe, but it would have to be a big one.)
Trump pulled the GoP down, not up, in the Election. Apart from the Presidentials, they did ok.
He asked for an assessment of options. He decided not to attack. Everything else is conjecture and positioning
So far, at least, he has been one of the least belligerent US Presidents in recent times, certainly since 9/11,
Yes. Maybe there’s some like d of global prize he could get? A prize for not fighting wars?
Maybe Obama, the drone warrior, could lend him one?
He didn't really start any wars it's true and it's one reason why his term didn't work out as bad as people like me feared.
His actions in respect of the Turkish Kurds was however appalling and likely to have extensive long-term ramifications. His so-called Middle East initiative is another example of making a bad situation worse.
But he didn't start a nuclear war (yet) so judging by that exceptionally low standard you have to say his foreign policy was not too bad.
There has been lots of stupidity, lots of arrogance, a lot of betrayal. But the most fundamental damage is that other countries, from the EU to Japan to Korea are no longer confident that the US will be there for them in the way that they have been confident since WW2. And that changes their behaviour.
A source at the Department of Health and Social Care said the results from the Oxford vaccine trials were “imminent” and that it could be one of the first to be rolled out.
Pollard told the Guardian that the Oxford/AstraZeneca team expect to have findings from their phase 3 clinical trial within a matter of weeks. Should that be the case, and the team also release their full safety data, some have suggested the vaccine could gain regulatory approval about the same time or before the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The latter is only expected to finish gathering two months of safety data – the amount required by the US FDA for potential emergency use authorisation – by the third week of November.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
He asked for an assessment of options. He decided not to attack. Everything else is conjecture and positioning
So far, at least, he has been one of the least belligerent US Presidents in recent times, certainly since 9/11,
Yes. Maybe there’s some like d of global prize he could get? A prize for not fighting wars?
Maybe Obama, the drone warrior, could lend him one?
He didn't really start any wars it's true and it's one reason why his term didn't work out as bad as people like me feared.
His actions in respect of the Turkish Kurds was however appalling and likely to have extensive long-term ramifications. His so-called Middle East initiative is another example of making a bad situation worse.
But he didn't start a nuclear war (yet) so judging by that exceptionally low standard you have to say his foreign policy was not too bad.
There has been lots of stupidity, lots of arrogance, a lot of betrayal. But the most fundamental damage is that other countries, from the EU to Japan to Korea are no longer confident that the US will be there for them in the way that they have been confident since WW2. And that changes their behaviour.
That may be a change for the better though.
Can you imagine us having supported Iraq, for example, had we been more closely tied in with Europe militarily, and less closely aligned with the USA? I recall it was a fairly marginal decision anyway and if Blair hadn't been joined at the hip with Bush we would have avoided that particular fiasco.
So maybe Donald has been doing us a favour, albeit unintentionally.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Headline must have been written by someone who hasn't noticed the guy in his day job for Manchester United. Rashford is a better role model than Maguire by a country mile.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Really? Your plan for the future is to go back 12 centuries?
Apologies for being a bit blunt but it's a nonsense division based on a misplaced romantic nostalgia.
I find the PR system used in Scotland (and Wales) a bit weird. It’s a kind of FPTP system masquerading as PR.
In effect it gives dominance to the leading party, which I guess Labour assumed would only ever be itself.
Not sure I agree with that. The dominant party can do better than their share of the vote by winning a lot of the constituencies but they are then penalised on the list vote so that other parties get a voice and the Parliament is more representative, if not precisely so. I think its better than the Westminster system to be honest. What it didn't foresee was a situation where around half of the population voted for 1 party because of 1 policy.
I certainly agree that Labour assumed that they would dominate it. I remember Donald Dewar explaining that every single councillor in his seat, and at that time there were 2 layers district and regional, was held by Labour. Changed days indeed.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
What about Hertfordshire? Or do you split Hertfordshire into two along the old danelaw boundary?
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
Would Trump's doing that finally put an end to his support in the GOP, outside a lunatic fringe. If the party had no power bases, for a couple of years at least, in Washington the top brass would be mightily miffed!
Trump doesn't give a stuff about the GoP, and never has. I'm not sure when exactly he quits, but the effect on the GoP will not be one of his considerations (unless they offer him some sort of massive bribe, but it would have to be a big one.)
Trump pulled the GoP down, not up, in the Election. Apart from the Presidentials, they did ok.
I don't think that's clear at all. It is possible for him to have both simultaneously dragged the GOP vote up, whilst also underperforming GOP candidates.
If (just using random numbers by way of illustration) 15% of the GOP vote was only there because of Trump (and might otherwise have not voted) but 5% of the Biden vote was anti Trump Republicans, then a GOP 10% margin over Dems with Trump on the Presidential ballot would turn into a 5% deficit without.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
If you split Sussex and Kent, who takes Surrey?
London. Half of it is part of London anyway. Although not against taking on the North Downs.
So what is the view of when Trump either goes or concedes (can't see the latter happening)?
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
I think he will try and be dragged out by secret service. Allow himself to become a martyr who fought to the end to his base of anti-democratic loons. Ideally this will be live on tv.
He probably shout 'I'll be back' as he is bundled into the military helicopter.
I find the PR system used in Scotland (and Wales) a bit weird. It’s a kind of FPTP system masquerading as PR.
In effect it gives dominance to the leading party, which I guess Labour assumed would only ever be itself.
Not sure I agree with that. The dominant party can do better than their share of the vote by winning a lot of the constituencies but they are then penalised on the list vote so that other parties get a voice and the Parliament is more representative, if not precisely so. I think its better than the Westminster system to be honest. What it didn't foresee was a situation where around half of the population voted for 1 party because of 1 policy.
I certainly agree that Labour assumed that they would dominate it. I remember Donald Dewar explaining that every single councillor in his seat, and at that time there were 2 layers district and regional, was held by Labour. Changed days indeed.
Electoral systems are quite boring...but the allocation of list seats according to regional party votes effectively overly privileges the leading national party.
In NZ, if Labour Party win 50% of the vote they end up with 50% of the seats. As just happened.
Whereas in 2016, the SNP won 42% of the list vote but ended with 49% of the seats...
If we're cherry picking parts of the election result, let's do it properly: 42% of the list vote and 7% of the list seats.
I find the PR system used in Scotland (and Wales) a bit weird. It’s a kind of FPTP system masquerading as PR.
In effect it gives dominance to the leading party, which I guess Labour assumed would only ever be itself.
Not sure I agree with that. The dominant party can do better than their share of the vote by winning a lot of the constituencies but they are then penalised on the list vote so that other parties get a voice and the Parliament is more representative, if not precisely so. I think its better than the Westminster system to be honest. What it didn't foresee was a situation where around half of the population voted for 1 party because of 1 policy.
I certainly agree that Labour assumed that they would dominate it. I remember Donald Dewar explaining that every single councillor in his seat, and at that time there were 2 layers district and regional, was held by Labour. Changed days indeed.
Electoral systems are quite boring..
How dare you?! Im offended, sir.
Oh good, I wondered what I had done wrong there for a moment.
He asked for an assessment of options. He decided not to attack. Everything else is conjecture and positioning
So far, at least, he has been one of the least belligerent US Presidents in recent times, certainly since 9/11,
Yes. Maybe there’s some like d of global prize he could get? A prize for not fighting wars?
Maybe Obama, the drone warrior, could lend him one?
He didn't really start any wars it's true and it's one reason why his term didn't work out as bad as people like me feared.
His actions in respect of the Turkish Kurds was however appalling and likely to have extensive long-term ramifications. His so-called Middle East initiative is another example of making a bad situation worse.
But he didn't start a nuclear war (yet) so judging by that exceptionally low standard you have to say his foreign policy was not too bad.
There has been lots of stupidity, lots of arrogance, a lot of betrayal. But the most fundamental damage is that other countries, from the EU to Japan to Korea are no longer confident that the US will be there for them in the way that they have been confident since WW2. And that changes their behaviour.
That may be a change for the better though.
Can you imagine us having supported Iraq, for example, had we been more closely tied in with Europe militarily, and less closely aligned with the USA? I recall it was a fairly marginal decision anyway and if Blair hadn't been joined at the hip with Bush we would have avoided that particular fiasco.
So maybe Donald has been doing us a favour, albeit unintentionally.
The 2 ones to watch for in the Pacific are
- Japan actually puts aircraft on their through-deck-dstroyer-helicopter-carriers* - Japan goes nuclear. With existing solid-fueled** three stage rockets and tons of plutonium, they would be in business whenever they like.
*Absolutely not carriers. No sir. **All solid fuel is plain wrong for an orbital launcher. The Japanese solid rocket program is an ICBM research program.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Really? Your plan for the future is to go back 12 centuries?
Apologies for being a bit blunt but it's a nonsense division based on a misplaced romantic nostalgia.
You could say much the same about Brexit, but it happened.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
More like Kent would split between Men of Kent and Kentish Men, with the Kentish Men joining Sussex. And what about East and West Sussex. Trouble at Oast House!
There's an awful lot of people on here not respecting the referendum. Devolution was chosen by the people and is still popular.
It maybe in Scotland - much less so in Wales.
June 2020: No devolved government in Wales: 22% (+5) Senedd with fewer powers: 5% (-3) Leave things as they are now: 24% (no change) Senedd with more powers: 20% (+2) Independent Wales: 16% (+2) Don’t Know: 12% (-4) Refused: 2% (-1)
EDIT That's an outright majority (excl DK and Ref) for devolution
I have concerns about the way the country is run You complain constantly He/she is a grievance monger
It's a truth that should be universally acknowledged that the lads who believe that the likes of Farage, Johnson, Cummings, Trump etc have given voice to the legitimate concerns of the ignored and voiceless also think Sturgeon and the Nats are grievance mongers who should shut their big, fat, stupid faces.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
What about Hertfordshire? Or do you split Hertfordshire into two along the old danelaw boundary?
Since you asked, I’d put it in the Ultra London suggested upthread.
I don’t agree with Charles that commuters should be governed separately from city dwellers. That’s a Detroit model...
For completion, I’d retain the county council, with powers equivalent to a London Borough.
So what is the view of when Trump either goes or concedes (can't see the latter happening)?
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
I think he will try and be dragged out by secret service. Allow himself to become a martyr who fought to the end to his base of anti-democratic loons. Ideally this will be live on tv.
He probably shout 'I'll be back' as he is bundled into the military helicopter.
Any devolution for England will be beset with charges of gerrymandering - unless some body could be created to devise the new units political considerations entering the equation. I'm unclear how that could be achieved.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
More like Kent would split between Men of Kent and Kentish Men, with the Kentish Men joining Sussex. And what about East and West Sussex. Trouble at Oast House!
I think we could take on the lesser Sussex, but merging Kent into Sussex is like saying Devon and Cornwall are the same.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
What about Hertfordshire? Or do you split Hertfordshire into two along the old danelaw boundary?
Since you asked, I’d put it in the Ultra London suggested upthread.
I don’t agree with Charles that commuters should be governed separately from city dwellers. That’s a Detroit model...
For completion, I’d retain the county council, with powers equivalent to a London Borough.
He asked for an assessment of options. He decided not to attack. Everything else is conjecture and positioning
So far, at least, he has been one of the least belligerent US Presidents in recent times, certainly since 9/11,
I'm not sure what definition you are using for the word 'belligerent'? He has caused havoc not least in the Middle East that will take his successors years to undo. Russia is the new stabilizing influence.
Respiratory medicine specialist Professor Ashley Woodcock, who is also the University of Manchester's Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs said: "If I were an old person I would be handling Christmas cards with gloves and putting them on a radiator for a few minutes."
He added: "(For receiving gifts), I think people could have a bucket with detergent in and a pair of Marigold gloves.
"They should accept the parcel wearing Marigolds and put it in an area or on a table, and wipe it down with a cloth soaked in detergent, leave it for 30 minutes, and then it's very safe."
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
More like Kent would split between Men of Kent and Kentish Men, with the Kentish Men joining Sussex. And what about East and West Sussex. Trouble at Oast House!
I think we could take on the lesser Sussex, but merging Kent into Sussex is like saying Devon and Cornwall are the same.
Not "the same," but Devon makes better sense with Cornwall as part of Dumnonia than lumped in with utterly ridiculous places like Swindon and Basingstoke as part of Wessex.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
Would Trump's doing that finally put an end to his support in the GOP, outside a lunatic fringe. If the party had no power bases, for a couple of years at least, in Washington the top brass would be mightily miffed!
Trump doesn't give a stuff about the GoP, and never has. I'm not sure when exactly he quits, but the effect on the GoP will not be one of his considerations (unless they offer him some sort of massive bribe, but it would have to be a big one.)
Trump pulled the GoP down, not up, in the Election. Apart from the Presidentials, they did ok.
Getting them Presidency, on paper anyway, was a big plus for the party's top brass.TBH I don't think either side Ian this discussion is that bothered about the other. Medium term if Trump is led away in handcuffs I suspect for much of the GOP Windsor Davies will apply...... Oh dear, what a shame. Never mind.
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
So what is the view of when Trump either goes or concedes (can't see the latter happening)?
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
I think he will try and be dragged out by secret service. Allow himself to become a martyr who fought to the end to his base of anti-democratic loons. Ideally this will be live on tv.
He probably shout 'I'll be back' as he is bundled into the military helicopter.
I'd go for some time between the Special Elections and inauguration day, so about Jan 10th.
He won't be dragged out - too humiliating. He won't make things easy though, so he'll quietly pack and leave when he has used the Office for his own advantage as far as possible.
I reckon by mid-Jan he'll hardly be able to make a phone call without permission so he'll call it a day then.
If SI were more enterprising they'd have a spread up on this.
As I recall it, the devolution policy had two parts. One one hand there was the plan, enacted, to give the smaller ancient nations of this island separate Parliaments and consequently some control over their own affairs. Secondly to give something like that to the English regions, which had not been 'separate nations' for over 1000 years; Northumbria, East Anglia and so on. That was comprehensively scuppered by the result of the NE referendum, partly as the result of the machinations of one D Cummings. That part of the proposal seems to have morphed Into the sub-regional Mayors policy.
Of course, PM Johnson only thinks Scottish devolution has been a 'disaster' because the current Scottish PM is, or seems at least, to be a great deal more competent than he is, and he doesn't like it.
The issue is not about Sturgeon being more competent than Boris (tbd but she is certainly a better presenter).
It’s the fact that she’s a grievance monger who seeks to divide and split, setting one against another. I understand that’s her political objective, but a system that facilitated that behaviour is sub optimal
Perhaps the Tories should stop providing her with grievances. The English Tory attitude to the Scots is so condescending at times that I can scarcely believe it's real. Let me explain it to you slowly. We are a country. Our constitutional arrangements are up to us. If devolution is inconvenient to you then that is your problem, not ours.
I find the PR system used in Scotland (and Wales) a bit weird. It’s a kind of FPTP system masquerading as PR.
In effect it gives dominance to the leading party, which I guess Labour assumed would only ever be itself.
Not sure I agree with that. The dominant party can do better than their share of the vote by winning a lot of the constituencies but they are then penalised on the list vote so that other parties get a voice and the Parliament is more representative, if not precisely so. I think its better than the Westminster system to be honest. What it didn't foresee was a situation where around half of the population voted for 1 party because of 1 policy.
I certainly agree that Labour assumed that they would dominate it. I remember Donald Dewar explaining that every single councillor in his seat, and at that time there were 2 layers district and regional, was held by Labour. Changed days indeed.
They certainly didn’t envisage the situation where two parties would encourage votes for the other in the different sections, as SNP and Green have done.
As I recall it, the devolution policy had two parts. One one hand there was the plan, enacted, to give the smaller ancient nations of this island separate Parliaments and consequently some control over their own affairs. Secondly to give something like that to the English regions, which had not been 'separate nations' for over 1000 years; Northumbria, East Anglia and so on. That was comprehensively scuppered by the result of the NE referendum, partly as the result of the machinations of one D Cummings. That part of the proposal seems to have morphed Into the sub-regional Mayors policy.
Of course, PM Johnson only thinks Scottish devolution has been a 'disaster' because the current Scottish PM is, or seems at least, to be a great deal more competent than he is, and he doesn't like it.
The issue is not about Sturgeon being more competent than Boris (tbd but she is certainly a better presenter).
It’s the fact that she’s a grievance monger who seeks to divide and split, setting one against another. I understand that’s her political objective, but a system that facilitated that behaviour is sub optimal
Perhaps the Tories should stop providing her with grievances. The English Tory attitude to the Scots is so condescending at times that I can scarcely believe it's real. Let me explain it to you slowly. We are a country. Our constitutional arrangements are up to us. If devolution is inconvenient to you then that is your problem, not ours.
It amazes me how narrow-minded English Tories are. But what I *really* don’t get is why Scottish Tories are happy to go along with it.
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
The divisions have to be culturally sensitive otherwise they wont last. It cant be purely bureaucratic geography-ism.
It’s one of the reasons why “Tyne and Wear” failed miserably.
- Japan actually puts aircraft on their through-deck-dstroyer-helicopter-carriers*
This is already happening but the Izumo/Kaga are more Gator Navy than full service CVW. They lack the bunker and magazine capacity for sustained strike ops.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Although you can quibble about the details, especially in the South East, most maps of English regions look roughly the same (think about the old ITV network, say) because the big lines are defined by geological features like the Pennines and society has evolved around them. And in places where the boundary isn't obvious, it doesn't matter so much, does it?
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
Yep.
Seeking equality of population is a mug’s game.
The cultural argument for Cornwall is very strong, and economically it is largely an island.
Whereas the denizen of Dorking has much in common with the burgher of Berkhamsted, and they are effectively participating in the same (regional) economy.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
I don’t know Cumbria very well. It could standalone, could sit in a “North West” region as it does today, or indeed join Northumbria in a “North Country” region.
As I recall it, the devolution policy had two parts. One one hand there was the plan, enacted, to give the smaller ancient nations of this island separate Parliaments and consequently some control over their own affairs. Secondly to give something like that to the English regions, which had not been 'separate nations' for over 1000 years; Northumbria, East Anglia and so on. That was comprehensively scuppered by the result of the NE referendum, partly as the result of the machinations of one D Cummings. That part of the proposal seems to have morphed Into the sub-regional Mayors policy.
Of course, PM Johnson only thinks Scottish devolution has been a 'disaster' because the current Scottish PM is, or seems at least, to be a great deal more competent than he is, and he doesn't like it.
The issue is not about Sturgeon being more competent than Boris (tbd but she is certainly a better presenter).
It’s the fact that she’s a grievance monger who seeks to divide and split, setting one against another. I understand that’s her political objective, but a system that facilitated that behaviour is sub optimal
Perhaps the Tories should stop providing her with grievances. The English Tory attitude to the Scots is so condescending at times that I can scarcely believe it's real. Let me explain it to you slowly. We are a country. Our constitutional arrangements are up to us. If devolution is inconvenient to you then that is your problem, not ours.
It amazes me how narrow-minded English Tories are. But what I *really* don’t get is why Scottish Tories are happy to go along with it.
I suspect it's a mixture of Stockholm syndrome, self-hatred and a hope that at some point the Tory imperialists South of the border will shut up. I am sure there are plenty of Scottish Tories banging their heads against a wall every time Johnson opens his mouth, but equally there will be others cheering him on, for reasons that probably only a psychiatrist could explain.
Sadly, they definitely backed the wrong horse. On the one hand, kudos for having the balls to forge their own path. On the other hand, they did end up with a far worse death toll and probably associated long covid debilitation than if they hadn't gone that way.
They did say that it's a marathon rather than a sprint and to judge their route in autumn when the second wave comes; that they'd be in a far better place than Finland, especially if no vaccine turned up within a year or two. As it turned out, they ended up with no discernible immunity, in a far worse place than Finland, and two vaccines have turned up within the year.
Not that the likes of Andrew Neil will ever admit to it. Is he still chirping "2, 2, 2, 2," as the claimed deaths per day?
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
So what is the view of when Trump either goes or concedes (can't see the latter happening)?
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
Two predictions for the last days of the Trump presidency:
1) Once the Georgia runoffs are out of the way, Trump will ram through executive orders to enact mainstream GOP policy on sending small boys up chimneys or whatever is the American equivalent. This I think is the deal that will have been made that explains why Republicans are not actively trying to oust Trump now.
2) Trump will step down and President Pence will issue a wide-ranging pardon.
I have a very sensible moderate FB friend from the USA - Florida. She is outraged at the idea of any restrictions being imposed on gatherings for Thanksgiving as some States are proposing [ rule of 5/6 etc] There are enormous numbers of comments supporting her. Given the current figures for Covid inalmost every part of the US I find it incredible to read them. She herself comments - "What if your family is greater than 5?" I haven't the heart to tell her that the best way to reduce her family size is............
As I recall it, the devolution policy had two parts. One one hand there was the plan, enacted, to give the smaller ancient nations of this island separate Parliaments and consequently some control over their own affairs. Secondly to give something like that to the English regions, which had not been 'separate nations' for over 1000 years; Northumbria, East Anglia and so on. That was comprehensively scuppered by the result of the NE referendum, partly as the result of the machinations of one D Cummings. That part of the proposal seems to have morphed Into the sub-regional Mayors policy.
Of course, PM Johnson only thinks Scottish devolution has been a 'disaster' because the current Scottish PM is, or seems at least, to be a great deal more competent than he is, and he doesn't like it.
The issue is not about Sturgeon being more competent than Boris (tbd but she is certainly a better presenter).
It’s the fact that she’s a grievance monger who seeks to divide and split, setting one against another. I understand that’s her political objective, but a system that facilitated that behaviour is sub optimal
Perhaps the Tories should stop providing her with grievances. The English Tory attitude to the Scots is so condescending at times that I can scarcely believe it's real. Let me explain it to you slowly. We are a country. Our constitutional arrangements are up to us. If devolution is inconvenient to you then that is your problem, not ours.
It amazes me how narrow-minded English Tories are. But what I *really* don’t get is why Scottish Tories are happy to go along with it.
I suspect it's a mixture of Stockholm syndrome, self-hatred and a hope that at some point the Tory imperialists South of the border will shut up. I am sure there are plenty of Scottish Tories banging their heads against a wall every time Johnson opens his mouth, but equally there will be others cheering him on, for reasons that probably only a psychiatrist could explain.
The Tories north of the border need to break off. I know Ruth was against this...I don’t understand why.
I've reluctantly come round to the conclusion that there must be some wealthy GoP supporters holding up the prices on the main Presidential Market.
Biden's figure has been oscillating between 1.05 and 1.06 for a while now and the amounts available are huge, regularly in excess of £2m. If you have nothing better to do than watch the vacillations you will see that whenever the price edges down to 1.05, huge sums are suddenly shifted to 1.06 and they sit there more or less untouched until the process starts to repeat itself. This strongly suggests there are one or two very big players manipulating this. It does need look like the spontaneous actions of thousands of independent small punters.
If you look at the remaining open State markets (Ga,Pa,Nev etc) the picture is different. For a start, the odds are if anything lower. This is utterly illogical as you will hardly need telling. The amounts up for grabs though are very small, which is pretty much what you would expect in a market about to be settled.
I think the big players are not bothering with the State markets, but they are trying to sustain the fiction that somehow Donald may pull it off. If you consider the wealth of, say, a Sheldon Adelson, you realise that the cost would be peanuts to him, especially if it allows his friend time to rake in contributions from cult followers for a second run (or more likely pay off his debts.)
I think something like that is happening. There would be other factors of course, but I'm sure now that the price is to some extent being artificially supported.
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
Yep.
Seeking equality of population is a mug’s game.
The cultural argument for Cornwall is very strong, and economically it is largely an island.
Whereas the denizen of Dorking has much in common with the burgher of Berkhamsted, and they are effectively participating in the same (regional) economy.
Economically it is an abandoned toilet, and given standalone status it would be forgotten and perish. You can't have a regional capital at Truro (or Launceston or wherever) because of the transport links. Dumnonia with a capital at Isca Dumnorum is what Cornwall needs.
I have a very sensible moderate FB friend from the USA - Florida. She is outraged at the idea of any restrictions being imposed on gatherings for Thanksgiving as some States are proposing [ rule of 5/6 etc] There are enormous numbers of comments supporting her. Given the current figures for Covid inalmost every part of the US I find it incredible to read them. She herself comments - "What if your family is greater than 5?" I haven't the heart to tell her that the best way to reduce her family size is............
There’s a huge number of people who think the whole thing is an inconvenience, something that happens to “others” and shouldn’t result in them changing their own behaviour - often while criticising their government for high case rates!
This is seen in the UK when people decided to have a three day bender, meeting as many friends as possible before the pubs were ordered closed at the beginning of this month. Those three days could end up being responsible for another fortnight’s worth of restrictions, running almost up to Christmas.
- Japan actually puts aircraft on their through-deck-dstroyer-helicopter-carriers* - Japan goes nuclear. With existing solid-fueled** three stage rockets and tons of plutonium, they would be in business whenever they like.
*Absolutely not carriers. No sir. **All solid fuel is plain wrong for an orbital launcher. The Japanese solid rocket program is an ICBM research program.
Japan deploying a nuclear weapon would be exceedingly unpopular domestically, so I can't see them going from "able to deploy a nuclear weapon whenever they like" to "actually did it" without extreme simultaneous provocation from China or NK or whoever showing the voters they needed nuclear capacity, and the US showing them that Japan couldn't rely on theirs.
The problem with federalism is that it requires the UK Prime Minister to voluntarily give up power. Would they ever do that? Unlikely.
The other problem is that the 85% of the UK population that would need to support federalism haven't shown the slightest interest in it, and the 2 main parties for whom they vote only make noises about it when the UK is threatened by Scottish indy and/or when they're not in a position to enact it.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
US swing voters have a incredibly weird obsession with bipartisanship.
I've reluctantly come round to the conclusion that there must be some wealthy GoP supporters holding up the prices on the main Presidential Market.
Biden's figure has been oscillating between 1.05 and 1.06 for a while now and the amounts available are huge, regularly in excess of £2m. If you have nothing better to do than watch the vacillations you will see that whenever the price edges down to 1.05, huge sums are suddenly shifted to 1.06 and they sit there more or less untouched until the process starts to repeat itself. This strongly suggests there are one or two very big players manipulating this. It does need look like the spontaneous actions of thousands of independent small punters.
If you look at the remaining open State markets (Ga,Pa,Nev etc) the picture is different. For a start, the odds are if anything lower. This is utterly illogical as you will hardly need telling. The amounts up for grabs though are very small, which is pretty much what you would expect in a market about to be settled.
I think the big players are not bothering with the State markets, but they are trying to sustain the fiction that somehow Donald may pull it off. If you consider the wealth of, say, a Sheldon Adelson, you realise that the cost would be peanuts to him, especially if it allows his friend time to rake in contributions from cult followers for a second run (or more likely pay off his debts.)
I think something like that is happening. There would be other factors of course, but I'm sure now that the price is to some extent being artificially supported.
So we should all pile in to make it more expensive for the manipulators?
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
If the P3 trials are done in 20 - 40 year olds they might be OK since we're not getting vaccinated for a while.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
More like Kent would split between Men of Kent and Kentish Men, with the Kentish Men joining Sussex. And what about East and West Sussex. Trouble at Oast House!
I think we could take on the lesser Sussex, but merging Kent into Sussex is like saying Devon and Cornwall are the same.
Not "the same," but Devon makes better sense with Cornwall as part of Dumnonia than lumped in with utterly ridiculous places like Swindon and Basingstoke as part of Wessex.
Well, my proposal for Wessex would see it give up some Eastern counties to an Ultra London.
Bristol, Bournemouth, Exeter and Plymouth can all rub along happily.
Exactly where the boundaries are is not critical. It's establishing roughly the number of units you want to end up with, where the centres of gravity are, and what sense of regional identity already exists.
I've no idea what the Cornish feel about absorbing Devon.
That's twisting what this is about though Andy. Tony Blair never said devolution would be a disaster: he was hugely pro it and Johnson did not say devolution was a disaster because it would bring independence.
That’s a bit like saying “replacing a dictator in Iraq with a stable democracy is a great idea... shame about the implementation”
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
The other point in support of this is that in order to arrive at a 1-1 the split voters have nearly all got to split the same way.
Seems to me the odds are closer to: c.50% 2-0, c.50% 0-2, <1% 1-1.
There’s not actually *that* much difference between these and the suggestion you accused of being some kind of medieval romanticism.
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
Er, no...
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
I'm personally quite comfortable with folding Cornwall into Wessex and Cumbria into Northumbria or Even Greater Lancashire, but they're rural enough, and distant enough, that there's justification for existing as standalone regions, particularly as they have a strong sense of regional identity that would chafe at being a distant appendage of Newcastle, Bristol or Manchester.
There are independent countries with a smaller population than Cornwall. It can make sense as a region of England.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
US swing voters have a incredibly weird obsession with bipartisanship.
Even Reagen in his landslide wins didn't enjoy a trifecta !
Mr. Boy, NI is a separate case. It's difficult for Labour to have a Celtic fiefdom in a place it doesn't stand candidates...
Mr. Charles, but then any such regional political body must necessarily lack the powers of Holyrood, unless you're calling for there to be separate tax rates, education and health policies within different parts of England. That strikes me as unacceptable. And the natural consequence of slicing England into pieces.
Not necessarily.
If you want the Union to survive you need a federal system.
Where you have querulous nationalist party as one of the entrenched parties then they will just chip and chip
If you want the union to survive you need to convince a majority in all nations that they want it to survive.
The Québécois had an entrenched nationalist party. But a slender majority was convinced to say no to independence and for now the issue is settled.
If you want the union to survive you need to face them down the ballot box and win, that is why there should be a second referendum if the Scots vote for it. Anything else and you're playing into the nationalists hands.
PS if the Scots vote for a referendum and have that denied to them then objections about that would be entirely legitimate and not querulous.
Good morning all, Labour must back full federalism and fast. I believe Richard Leonard must go first which realistically won't happen until Labour loses (and loses badly) next year.
F1: got to say I really like the options to see individual driver points tallies per race on the official website.
Having checked those, in a bid to try and decide whether to back Leclerc or not as best of the rest, the following numbers appeared (NB I'm sleepy and this was mental arithmetic so the numbers may, in fact, be erroneous).
This reinforces my view that Ricciardo is least likely to top the group. Not impossible at all, but least likely . Leclerc's been doing very well lately and Perez just marginally worse, and whilst Leclerc could easily have done better at Turkey, Perez was screwed the previous race by a strategy call that cost him quite a few points.
There are three races left, two of which are in Bahrain (albeit with differing track layouts). Hmm.
I have a very sensible moderate FB friend from the USA - Florida. She is outraged at the idea of any restrictions being imposed on gatherings for Thanksgiving as some States are proposing [ rule of 5/6 etc] There are enormous numbers of comments supporting her. Given the current figures for Covid inalmost every part of the US I find it incredible to read them. She herself comments - "What if your family is greater than 5?" I haven't the heart to tell her that the best way to reduce her family size is............
You could forward the following to your friend, but I suspect that she may not find it persuasive
So what is the view of when Trump either goes or concedes (can't see the latter happening)?
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
Two predictions for the last days of the Trump presidency:
1) Once the Georgia runoffs are out of the way, Trump will ram through executive orders to enact mainstream GOP policy on sending small boys up chimneys or whatever is the American equivalent. This I think is the deal that will have been made that explains why Republicans are not actively trying to oust Trump now.
2) Trump will step down and President Pence will issue a wide-ranging pardon.
Two difficulties:
1. Executive orders are routinely "reviewed" by an incoming President in the early weeks of a new administration, and are relatively easy to revoke.
2. A President could only pardon Trump for federal crimes under the US Constitution. Most of Trump's biggest problems are at the state level. So it wouldn't actually help him all that much.
- Japan actually puts aircraft on their through-deck-dstroyer-helicopter-carriers* - Japan goes nuclear. With existing solid-fueled** three stage rockets and tons of plutonium, they would be in business whenever they like.
*Absolutely not carriers. No sir. **All solid fuel is plain wrong for an orbital launcher. The Japanese solid rocket program is an ICBM research program.
Japan deploying a nuclear weapon would be exceedingly unpopular domestically, so I can't see them going from "able to deploy a nuclear weapon whenever they like" to "actually did it" without extreme simultaneous provocation from China or NK or whoever showing the voters they needed nuclear capacity, and the US showing them that Japan couldn't rely on theirs.
I think that the combination of the US being seen as a less than reliable ally, Ukraine *and* some... interesting behaviour from China or North Korea could tip them over that edge
Note that we are current on about 1.75 out of 3 on this.
The aircraft carrier one will be a straw in the wind. I think it is now inevitable. The Chinese reaction will be interesting.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My first draft would put Foxy in with Mercia.
Though I think it's interesting that the area of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw feels to me like it still constitutes a sort of neutral ground between more strongly defined regions.
I'd give the coastal part of this area to East Anglia.
Sadly, they definitely backed the wrong horse. On the one hand, kudos for having the balls to forge their own path. On the other hand, they did end up with a far worse death toll and probably associated long covid debilitation than if they hadn't gone that way.
They did say that it's a marathon rather than a sprint and to judge their route in autumn when the second wave comes; that they'd be in a far better place than Finland, especially if no vaccine turned up within a year or two. As it turned out, they ended up with no discernible immunity, in a far worse place than Finland, and two vaccines have turned up within the year.
Not that the likes of Andrew Neil will ever admit to it. Is he still chirping "2, 2, 2, 2," as the claimed deaths per day?
Yesterday I had someone on the old Twitter try to give it the old "sure swedish case numbers are rising but deaths are trending downwards" effort.
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
If the P3 trials are done in 20 - 40 year olds they might be OK since we're not getting vaccinated for a while.
In the three approved vaccine scenario we probably we would get it fairly quickly because supply until end of June 2021 would be 99m doses for the UK, 350m doses for the US and 280m doses for the EU plus side deals. The R value is going to drop drastically from around March onwards which gives vaccine makers a 4 month window to get PIII trials done.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My first draft would put Foxy in with Mercia.
Though I think it's interesting that the area of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw feels to me like it still constitutes a sort of neutral ground between more strongly defined regions.
I'd give the coastal part of this area to East Anglia.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
The problem with federalism is that it requires the UK Prime Minister to voluntarily give up power. Would they ever do that? Unlikely.
The other problem is that the 85% of the UK population that would need to support federalism haven't shown the slightest interest in it, and the 2 main parties for whom they vote only make noises about it when the UK is threatened by Scottish indy and/or when they're not in a position to enact it.
Maybe we need a thread on federalism instead of the ones on AV?
Regarding English regions I won't be involved if they happen, but "Yorkshire" is obviously a region and includes everywhere south of the Tees like Boro, and Hull which has always been in Yorkshire. North of the Tees have Northumbria as far as the Scottish border.
On God's side of the hills its also fairly simple. Lancashire is Lancashire and that includes Manchester and Liverpool. Cheshire goes into whatever the region to the south is (Mercia?).
What do we do with Cumbria? Not big enough to be a region, or artificially combined into Northumbria? Into Lancashire?
Comments
And London shouldn’t include the commuter towns because they have very different interests
I have concerns about the way the country is run
You complain constantly
He/she is a grievance monger
Trump pulled the GoP down, not up, in the Election. Apart from the Presidentials, they did ok.
Broadly agree with your divisions, but:
I’d put Hampshire into Wessex.
I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Can you imagine us having supported Iraq, for example, had we been more closely tied in with Europe militarily, and less closely aligned with the USA? I recall it was a fairly marginal decision anyway and if Blair hadn't been joined at the hip with Bush we would have avoided that particular fiasco.
So maybe Donald has been doing us a favour, albeit unintentionally.
Devolution was chosen by the people and is still popular.
I can't see him being dragged out by the Secret Service on inauguration day
I liked the idea of him disappearing to Mar-a- largo without saying anything and not coming back. Just leaving stuff in limbo.
The obvious time is going for his Christmas break and not coming back.
ECV day is also an obviously critical date(14/12).
Quite a few weeks before any of these dates so a lot could happen.
Opinions?
for some reason everyone thinks it is the opposite.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/marcus-rashford-launches-book-club-so-every-child-can-experience-escapism-39756304.html#:~:text=Footballer Marcus Rashford is launching,from all socio-economic backgrounds
Headline must have been written by someone who hasn't noticed the guy in his day job for Manchester United. Rashford is a better role model than Maguire by a country mile.
Apologies for being a bit blunt but it's a nonsense division based on a misplaced romantic nostalgia.
If (just using random numbers by way of illustration) 15% of the GOP vote was only there because of Trump (and might otherwise have not voted) but 5% of the Biden vote was anti Trump Republicans, then a GOP 10% margin over Dems with Trump on the Presidential ballot would turn into a 5% deficit without.
He probably shout 'I'll be back' as he is bundled into the military helicopter.
42% of the list vote and 7% of the list seats.
On second thoughts, let's not cherry pick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47480207
In 8 years of Obama there were 1,878 Drone strikes
in 2 years of Trump there were 2,243 Drone strikes
Trump then eliminated the rules saying the US had to report civilian casualties.
- Japan actually puts aircraft on their through-deck-dstroyer-helicopter-carriers*
- Japan goes nuclear. With existing solid-fueled** three stage rockets and tons of plutonium, they would be in business whenever they like.
*Absolutely not carriers. No sir.
**All solid fuel is plain wrong for an orbital launcher. The Japanese solid rocket program is an ICBM research program.
No devolved government in Wales: 22% (+5)
Senedd with fewer powers: 5% (-3)
Leave things as they are now: 24% (no change)
Senedd with more powers: 20% (+2)
Independent Wales: 16% (+2)
Don’t Know: 12% (-4)
Refused: 2% (-1)
EDIT
That's an outright majority (excl DK and Ref) for devolution
I don’t agree with Charles that commuters should be governed separately from city dwellers. That’s a Detroit model...
For completion, I’d retain the county council, with powers equivalent to a London Borough.
But districts would die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England
Do you include York in it? *troll face*
In all seriousness, some folk in Middlesborough for example would kick up a fuss if they're not included in Yorkshire.
He added: "(For receiving gifts), I think people could have a bucket with detergent in and a pair of Marigold gloves.
"They should accept the parcel wearing Marigolds and put it in an area or on a table, and wipe it down with a cloth soaked in detergent, leave it for 30 minutes, and then it's very safe."
telegraph live blog
The reason people go back to the heptarchy (or a “corrected” version thereof) is that they still kind of make sense on both cultural and economic grounds.
He won't be dragged out - too humiliating. He won't make things easy though, so he'll quietly pack and leave when he has used the Office for his own advantage as far as possible.
I reckon by mid-Jan he'll hardly be able to make a phone call without permission so he'll call it a day then.
If SI were more enterprising they'd have a spread up on this.
The English Tory attitude to the Scots is so condescending at times that I can scarcely believe it's real. Let me explain it to you slowly. We are a country. Our constitutional arrangements are up to us. If devolution is inconvenient to you then that is your problem, not ours.
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.06
Democrats 1.06
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.05
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.08
Biden ECV 300-329 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.05
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.06
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.07
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.04
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Cornwall and Cumbria, each with a population of circa 0.5m, make no sense as standalone regions, especially alongside and Ultra-London of what, 12-15m people?
It’s one of the reasons why “Tyne and Wear” failed miserably.
And in places where the boundary isn't obvious, it doesn't matter so much, does it?
Seeking equality of population is a mug’s game.
The cultural argument for Cornwall is very strong, and economically it is largely an island.
Whereas the denizen of Dorking has much in common with the burgher of Berkhamsted, and they are effectively participating in the same (regional) economy.
It could standalone, could sit in a “North West” region as it does today, or indeed join Northumbria in a “North Country” region.
On the one hand, kudos for having the balls to forge their own path.
On the other hand, they did end up with a far worse death toll and probably associated long covid debilitation than if they hadn't gone that way.
They did say that it's a marathon rather than a sprint and to judge their route in autumn when the second wave comes; that they'd be in a far better place than Finland, especially if no vaccine turned up within a year or two. As it turned out, they ended up with no discernible immunity, in a far worse place than Finland, and two vaccines have turned up within the year.
Not that the likes of Andrew Neil will ever admit to it. Is he still chirping "2, 2, 2, 2," as the claimed deaths per day?
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
1) Once the Georgia runoffs are out of the way, Trump will ram through executive orders to enact mainstream GOP policy on sending small boys up chimneys or whatever is the American equivalent. This I think is the deal that will have been made that explains why Republicans are not actively trying to oust Trump now.
2) Trump will step down and President Pence will issue a wide-ranging pardon.
There are enormous numbers of comments supporting her. Given the current figures for Covid inalmost every part of the US I find it incredible to read them. She herself comments - "What if your family is greater than 5?" I haven't the heart to tell her that the best way to reduce her family size is............
I've reluctantly come round to the conclusion that there must be some wealthy GoP supporters holding up the prices on the main Presidential Market.
Biden's figure has been oscillating between 1.05 and 1.06 for a while now and the amounts available are huge, regularly in excess of £2m. If you have nothing better to do than watch the vacillations you will see that whenever the price edges down to 1.05, huge sums are suddenly shifted to 1.06 and they sit there more or less untouched until the process starts to repeat itself. This strongly suggests there are one or two very big players manipulating this. It does need look like the spontaneous actions of thousands of independent small punters.
If you look at the remaining open State markets (Ga,Pa,Nev etc) the picture is different. For a start, the odds are if anything lower. This is utterly illogical as you will hardly need telling. The amounts up for grabs though are very small, which is pretty much what you would expect in a market about to be settled.
I think the big players are not bothering with the State markets, but they are trying to sustain the fiction that somehow Donald may pull it off. If you consider the wealth of, say, a Sheldon Adelson, you realise that the cost would be peanuts to him, especially if it allows his friend time to rake in contributions from cult followers for a second run (or more likely pay off his debts.)
I think something like that is happening. There would be other factors of course, but I'm sure now that the price is to some extent being artificially supported.
This is seen in the UK when people decided to have a three day bender, meeting as many friends as possible before the pubs were ordered closed at the beginning of this month. Those three days could end up being responsible for another fortnight’s worth of restrictions, running almost up to Christmas.
Bristol, Bournemouth, Exeter and Plymouth can all rub along happily.
Exactly where the boundaries are is not critical. It's establishing roughly the number of units you want to end up with, where the centres of gravity are, and what sense of regional identity already exists.
I've no idea what the Cornish feel about absorbing Devon.
Seems to me the odds are closer to: c.50% 2-0, c.50% 0-2, <1% 1-1.
There are independent countries with a smaller population than Cornwall. It can make sense as a region of England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_trifecta#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png ultimately the US is defined by its presidents not who controls congress though.
The Québécois had an entrenched nationalist party. But a slender majority was convinced to say no to independence and for now the issue is settled.
If you want the union to survive you need to face them down the ballot box and win, that is why there should be a second referendum if the Scots vote for it. Anything else and you're playing into the nationalists hands.
PS if the Scots vote for a referendum and have that denied to them then objections about that would be entirely legitimate and not querulous.
Having checked those, in a bid to try and decide whether to back Leclerc or not as best of the rest, the following numbers appeared (NB I'm sleepy and this was mental arithmetic so the numbers may, in fact, be erroneous).
Averages 3/6 races most recent:
Ricciardo = 6/9.17
Perez = 10.67/11
Leclerc = 11.33/8.66
This reinforces my view that Ricciardo is least likely to top the group. Not impossible at all, but least likely . Leclerc's been doing very well lately and Perez just marginally worse, and whilst Leclerc could easily have done better at Turkey, Perez was screwed the previous race by a strategy call that cost him quite a few points.
There are three races left, two of which are in Bahrain (albeit with differing track layouts). Hmm.
https://youtu.be/U_Vg_9jDuX8
1. Executive orders are routinely "reviewed" by an incoming President in the early weeks of a new administration, and are relatively easy to revoke.
2. A President could only pardon Trump for federal crimes under the US Constitution. Most of Trump's biggest problems are at the state level. So it wouldn't actually help him all that much.
Note that we are current on about 1.75 out of 3 on this.
The aircraft carrier one will be a straw in the wind. I think it is now inevitable. The Chinese reaction will be interesting.
Though I think it's interesting that the area of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw feels to me like it still constitutes a sort of neutral ground between more strongly defined regions.
I'd give the coastal part of this area to East Anglia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Boroughs_of_the_Danelaw
Not that I would enjoy being bracketed with Leicestershire or Rutland in the East Midlands, but they are far enough away that it would be tolerable.
For me the important thing is that there is no one big city to feel they are the most important, which for me scopes out Sheffield and Birmingham.
"Greater Lancashire" makes it sound like Yorkshire has a bigger appendage.
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million
South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million
West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million
South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million
Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million
Greater London - as now - 9 million
East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million
Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million
North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million
West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million
West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million
South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million
North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million
Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million
Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million
North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million
West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million
South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million
North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million
North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
On God's side of the hills its also fairly simple. Lancashire is Lancashire and that includes Manchester and Liverpool. Cheshire goes into whatever the region to the south is (Mercia?).
What do we do with Cumbria? Not big enough to be a region, or artificially combined into Northumbria? Into Lancashire?