I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
Why is the British Green Party so moronic? They make me feel like jacking in my career and founding a single issue dedicated environmentalism party.
When May was PM, Labour was led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems were going down their Ignore Democracy rabbit hole, my prevailing feeling was a “plague on your houses”. At that point I’d have loved to be able to vote for a party that campaigned on a single issue of appropriate state intervention to cure the market failure of environmental damage and nudge the private sector in the right direction. But the Green Party are such morons, I didn’t vote at all.
Are the various European Green parties so batty?
You're not specific about what you dislike, but the British Greens are unusual in that they politically very close to Corbyn's agenda but culturally very different from Labour - their conference is distinctly counter-culture, which Corbyn and McDonnell really are not. Caroline Lucas is good at what she does, though, and punches well above her weight.
German Greens are close to power and have become strikingly centrist, to the point that coalition with the Christian Democrats is not an outlandish idea - they are anti-nuclear but then so are the CDU. French Greens have two choices, one left-wing and one centrist.
Can you talk me through how the Greens are counter-cultural and Corbyn/McDonnell aren't please?
Corbyn and McDonnell are fairly conventional old left.
The Greens have a more millennial vibe of counter culture, perhaps best shown in their refusal to have a single leader, and those having little executive power. The contrast is that the Greens are more anarcho-syndicalist than communist, mistrustful of all power structures.
Yes - and the conference has lots of vegan stands, horticultural stands, organic food stands, etc., with a fair number of hippie-like people. You couldn't call Corbyn a natural hippie, could you? They approve of any left-wing policy you can think of, but it's secondary to wanting a fresh new culture close to the land and natural living. Conversely the Labour left are all in favour of the green industrial revolution etc., but it's secondary to equality and workers' rights. There were zero union people at the Greens.so far as I could see -I'm sure they favoured unions in the same way as I favour ocelots, without ever having met one.
Trudy Harrison, whose by-election win, first gain for a governing party since the 80s, may have helped persuade May to go for an early election in 2017. Theresa is probably not a fan.
Why is the British Green Party so moronic? They make me feel like jacking in my career and founding a single issue dedicated environmentalism party.
When May was PM, Labour was led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems were going down their Ignore Democracy rabbit hole, my prevailing feeling was a “plague on your houses”. At that point I’d have loved to be able to vote for a party that campaigned on a single issue of appropriate state intervention to cure the market failure of environmental damage and nudge the private sector in the right direction. But the Green Party are such morons, I didn’t vote at all.
Are the various European Green parties so batty?
You're not specific about what you dislike, but the British Greens are unusual in that they politically very close to Corbyn's agenda but culturally very different from Labour - their conference is distinctly counter-culture, which Corbyn and McDonnell really are not. Caroline Lucas is good at what she does, though, and punches well above her weight.
German Greens are close to power and have become strikingly centrist, to the point that coalition with the Christian Democrats is not an outlandish idea - they are anti-nuclear but then so are the CDU. French Greens have two choices, one left-wing and one centrist.
Nonsense like the 6pm man curfew.
A curfew like that could find a lot of self-identifying women around after 6PM.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
Why do these groups put 'research' in their names? It's a standing joke about what research do they undertake, and is it really as simple as wanting to put a smart sounding word in the name?
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
Trudy Harrison, whose by-election win, first gain for a governing party since the 80s, may have helped persuade May to go for an early election in 2017. Theresa is probably not a fan.
I doubt Theresa May blames Trudy Harrison personally. May misread broad support for her new adminstration as deep support, and ran a terrible campaign. None of that attaches to Ms Harrison, and I'm sure the ex-PM knows that perfectly well.
ROME (Reuters) - Italian health authorities have ordered the withdrawal of a batch of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine following the deaths of two men in Sicily who had recently been inoculated, a source close to the matter said on Thursday.
Tragic, but unless they think the UK has vaccinated 10m people with it and is covering up a lot of ill reactions, it really seems like an over abundance of caution.
Iceland and Norway have announced they are suspending vaccinating people with AZ.
Which - of course - will only increase scepticism further.
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
I think a lot of us are like that.
I love churches, I love the calmness, like Christmas Carols, music on Good Friday, and I even like the cantor of some of the priests. I was married in a church, christened in a church, and would like to have my funeral service in a chirch. However, whenever I hear the Jesus stuff or read the preachiness about saving yourself and sacrificing and giving yourself over to Him in the Bible I think it's barkingz and I have the same reaction as I have to anti-vaxxers.
I think I'm basically culturally Christian, and a very English CofE version at that too as I dig The Queen heading it up, so for me it's simply a matter of tradition and identity. Something I do and an institution I like.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
ROME (Reuters) - Italian health authorities have ordered the withdrawal of a batch of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine following the deaths of two men in Sicily who had recently been inoculated, a source close to the matter said on Thursday.
Tragic, but unless they think the UK has vaccinated 10m people with it and is covering up a lot of ill reactions, it really seems like an over abundance of caution.
Iceland and Norway have announced they are suspending vaccinating people with AZ.
Which - of course - will only increase scepticism further.
Why? I don't get it.
Is the malignancy of rumour and innuendo spreading?
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
There was a similar mine blocked by Newcastle City Council in the summer. I’m still angry about it.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I don't think it's all Clegg, not by a long shot. I just don't see any Lib Dems arguing for, y'know, liberalism? It's like they've forgotten how.
I keep meaning to write a thread header on this. But I need to be arsed first.
Not this "I'd vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were genuinely Liberal and Democratic" nonsense.
Usually peddled from the Right, it's predicated on the notion the only true liberalism is the classical liberalism of the 19th Century.
The truth is "liberal" can mean whatever you want it to mean - rather like conservatism and indeed socialism and social democracy. The current Government may call itself Conservative but it's part social democrat and part Liberal Unionist from my perspective.
I doubt many would vote for it because it's Conservative - they might vote for it because it's not Labour I suppose but if anything "of the left" is to be feared and opposed, fair enough.
The Orange Bookers were, I suppose, the most recent incarnation of a more traditional liberal ethos and it's no surprise there was a philosophical convergence with Cameron's "liberal conservatism" - that's why the Coalition happened because in 2010 the LDs and Conservatives converged enough for it to happen. Since then, the Conservative shave long stopped being liberal and to some extent the LDs have as well but the point of liberalism is it is constantly evolving and being re-defined as society changes.
If Johnson represents Conservatism for the early 21st Century, then why should Davey throwback to earlier notions of Liberalism - he and the party need to be about re-defining liberalism for today - oddly enough, on the social side, the liberals have won.
Trudy Harrison, whose by-election win, first gain for a governing party since the 80s, may have helped persuade May to go for an early election in 2017. Theresa is probably not a fan.
I doubt Theresa May blames Trudy Harrison personally. May misread broad support for her new adminstration as deep support, and ran a terrible campaign. None of that attaches to Ms Harrison, and I'm sure the ex-PM knows that perfectly well.
I was only joking - the temptation for an early GE must have been enormous, and right through the Locals it looked like a good call.
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
"The LibDems are not just empty. They are a void within a vaccum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
Although that's actually slightly fewer Welsh people than Scots naming British as part of their identity, and only slightly more English than Scots doing so.
I don't think those figures say much at all about the most likely part of the UK to "fall off". The key difference between nationalism in Scotland versus Wales is it is expressed more as political in the former and more as cultural in the latter. It isn't as such that people feel more Scottish in Scotland than they do Welsh in Wales, it's that feeling Welsh isn't as much of a political statement.
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
Well that’s not possible, either on the form or in reality. Glad we have another No for the gang 😌
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
According to the Sun (yes, I know)," it was revealed last month that due to the high sulphur content of the coal itself, it might be able to be used at all - either in Britain or sold to other markets". If true, that does seem rather a snag, irrespective of climate impact.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
Labour 1984: you can't close a single coal mine! Labour 2021: you can't open a single coal mine!
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
Well that’s not possible, either on the form or in reality. Glad we have another No for the gang 😌
You say that, and to be fair it probably is a nonsense but how does Ed Miliband fill out his census form ?
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
Although that's actually slightly fewer Welsh people than Scots naming British as part of their identity, and only slightly more English than Scots doing so.
I don't think those figures say much at all about the most likely part of the UK to "fall off". The key difference between nationalism in Scotland versus Wales is it is expressed more as political in the former and more as cultural in the latter. It isn't as such that people feel more Scottish in Scotland than they do Welsh in Wales, it's that feeling Welsh isn't as much of a political statement.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Follow the Johnson government, what the f8ck do you expect?
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
Surprised at that. I just assumed most people would answer as I did British + nation. It seems I am in a small minority.
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
"The LibDems are not just empty. They are a void within a vaccum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris.
Why is the British Green Party so moronic? They make me feel like jacking in my career and founding a single issue dedicated environmentalism party.
When May was PM, Labour was led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems were going down their Ignore Democracy rabbit hole, my prevailing feeling was a “plague on your houses”. At that point I’d have loved to be able to vote for a party that campaigned on a single issue of appropriate state intervention to cure the market failure of environmental damage and nudge the private sector in the right direction. But the Green Party are such morons, I didn’t vote at all.
Are the various European Green parties so batty?
You're not specific about what you dislike, but the British Greens are unusual in that they politically very close to Corbyn's agenda but culturally very different from Labour - their conference is distinctly counter-culture, which Corbyn and McDonnell really are not. Caroline Lucas is good at what she does, though, and punches well above her weight.
German Greens are close to power and have become strikingly centrist, to the point that coalition with the Christian Democrats is not an outlandish idea - they are anti-nuclear but then so are the CDU. French Greens have two choices, one left-wing and one centrist.
Nonsense like the 6pm man curfew.
Despite Nick Palmer's use of the term "British Greens", there is no such party.
There are the Scottish Greens. There are the Northern Irish Greens. And there are the EnglandandWales Greens.
The Welsh Greens voted to remain part of the EnglandandWales Greens (unlike the Scots and the N. Irish). They are a region within England, as far as the EnglandandWales Greens are constituted.
So, they are not a separate party.
But, since October 2020, they now back independence for Wales.
In other words, they are going into the Senedd elections as a party backing Welsh independence, but they are organised as a region within the EnglandandWales Greens.
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
I think a lot of us are like that.
I love churches, I love the calmness, like Christmas Carols, music on Good Friday, and I even like the cantor of some of the priests. I was married in a church, christened in a church, and would like to have my funeral service in a chirch. However, whenever I hear the Jesus stuff or read the preachiness about saving yourself and sacrificing and giving yourself over to Him in the Bible I think it's barkingz and I have the same reaction as I have to anti-vaxxers.
I think I'm basically culturally Christian, and a very English CofE version at that too as I dig The Queen heading it up, so for me it's simply a matter of tradition and identity. Something I do and an institution I like.
Sorry about my syntax and grammar there. God knows what happened.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
And furthermore, it must be said that Robert Jenrick has the most punchable face this side of Jared Kushner.
Looking ahead to the mayoral elections, Khan is obviously going to win, as presumably will whoever stands for Labour in Liverpool and Manchester, but any rumblings abotu the others? I know West Midlands, Tees and West of England were close, so even doing a little bit worse might cost the Tories all three?
ROME (Reuters) - Italian health authorities have ordered the withdrawal of a batch of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine following the deaths of two men in Sicily who had recently been inoculated, a source close to the matter said on Thursday.
Tragic, but unless they think the UK has vaccinated 10m people with it and is covering up a lot of ill reactions, it really seems like an over abundance of caution.
Iceland and Norway have announced they are suspending vaccinating people with AZ.
Which - of course - will only increase scepticism further.
Why? I don't get it.
Is the malignancy of rumour and innuendo spreading?
Well, AstraZeneca did get into a few troubles during the trials with people having adverse reactions, and got into a really nasty spat in India with one person who they threatened to sue. There have - undoubtedly - been a few negative reactions associated with the vaccine, and it may be that there is a small increased risk of blood clots.
Of course, it's not like Moderna and Pfizer are without their problems, with at least one death, and some serious issues with anaphylaxis.
For one reason or another, AstraZeneca is not being used in a bunch of places. Switzerland refused its authorisation. The US hasn't authorised it. South Africa, Norway and Iceland have suspended use of it.
All these things tie into a - largely undeserved - narrative that it either isn't effective, or is in some way unsafe.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
Well that’s not possible, either on the form or in reality. Glad we have another No for the gang 😌
You say that, and to be fair it probably is a nonsense but how does Ed Miliband fill out his census form ?
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
One interesting question is what happens to those large Lib Dem 2nd place votes in the SE constituencies next time.
Personally, I think they only stick & gain if a moderate Labour Government looks like it will take power. Otherwise, I think they stagnate or maybe even fall back a bit.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
And furthermore, it must be said that Robert Jenrick has the most punchable face this side of Jared Kushner.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
According to the Sun (yes, I know)," it was revealed last month that due to the high sulphur content of the coal itself, it might be able to be used at all - either in Britain or sold to other markets". If true, that does seem rather a snag, irrespective of climate impact.
That was the rumour I appear to remember reading (though probably not from the same source.) Anyway, that's why I equivocated. Clearly if it's no good for steel then we shouldn't be digging it up anyway and burning it for power generation.
If it is good for steel, on the other hand, then not only ought it to be allowed, surely it must be allowed? Given that the steel is necessary, and the coal is necessary for making the steel, then it's actually better that we use a local source than expend additional resources on importing it from abroad?
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
According to the Sun (yes, I know)," it was revealed last month that due to the high sulphur content of the coal itself, it might be able to be used at all - either in Britain or sold to other markets". If true, that does seem rather a snag, irrespective of climate impact.
That would seem far more relevant to me than climate impact. Many things have a climate impact but might still be worth doing, and other mitigations could offset any such impact at least to a degree, and there are a lot of kneejerk 'don't build anything' sort of reaction which needs to be sifted away from the serious objections (with the former using the latter arguments as cover). But if it is the case that such a mine would not, in any case, achieve much use, that is very important.
Re the mine: if it's coking coal for steel production, then I'd want to know who the customer is. I think it's highly likely that GFG / Liberty Steel are not long for this world.
(Sanjeev Gupta used to be a friend of mine at University.)
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
Labour 1984: you can't close a single coal mine! Labour 2021: you can't open a single coal mine!
To be fair it was Scargill who opposed the closure of any coal mine not Labour.
Labour had after all closed hundreds while in government.
Johnson has absolutely no principles at all, which is why he's so good at winning.
London found that out, sadly too late after he'd just left power - and now look at the state of the Tories there. "Never again".
How else do you explain a man who in 2019 states Labour is pursuing communism by increasing corporation tax and then who in 2021 steals that policy and says the Tories will increase it further?
I don't agree with George Osborne but he has principles and he sticks to them. He thinks it is the wrong decision because it always is. Johnson just shapeshifts because that is what people of his kind do.
The mistake wasn’t going into coalition, or even failing to get more on constitutional reform. The mistake was voting for tuition fees.
That was even more crass as (1) they didn’t need to do it, as Cameron was willing to be flexible on voting (2) they had staked their credibility on them, losing it all in one go and (3) it was abundantly clear at the time and is only becoming clearer with hindsight that the Liberal Democrats were 100% correct to oppose the Browne report - let us not forget, a man who was very fortunate not to be in prison - which has created a totally unsuitable and unsustainable system of HE funding that suits only a few vice chancellors.
Had they opposed or better still blocked tuition fees, they would have lost seats but no way would they have imploded as they did.
As I'm no longer a Party member, all I can say is how right you are and the damage Nick Clegg did has brought the party to its current low ebb.
I will say free tuition fees wasn't a discussed party policy as such - it was the enthusiasm of some candidates in student seats to get student votes (which worked). Public pledges became party policy and that's not how it should be though that has happened in other parties too.
I can only imagine Clegg was nobbled by those telling him how disastrous the public finances are and how the country couldn't afford to cut benefits and keep free tuition fees for (largely) middle class students. As you say, the irony has been had the Party stuck to its guns, it would have been so much better off.
I can only imagine Clegg thought he could play "the greater good" card but it looked and sounded like a betrayal - as you say, it was never going to be a deal-breaker for the Coalition as I suspect Labour would have backed some form of "graduate tax" and between them and the Conservatives would have outvoted the LDs. The students would still have been angry but the loss of faith wouldn't have happened.
The LDs knew in 2013 the Conservatives were campaigning hard in their seats but did nothing because the local networks had atrophied with councillor losses and defections.
The more I think about it, the more I'm reminded of the end of "Wargames" - the best scenario for the Liberal Democrats in a Coalition was not to go into a Coalition.
Apparently when William Hague returned home after selling the coalition deal he told Ffion 'I think I have just destroyed the Liberal Democrat Party'. So maybe he knew the end of Wargames in advance.
The Liberal Democrats destroyed the Liberal Democrats. You can only ride a horse in one direction. The LDs tried to ride multiple horses in both directions at the same time. They did it for longer than should have been possible, but only because they didn't get power.
Once they did, they got torn in two by horses.....
The warning signs were there - in the ridiculousness of their position on an EU referendum. They wanted an In/Out referendum in 2008; might have wanted one in 2010, but prevented the Coalition talking about it; but by 2013 didn’t want one.
If the LibDems had supported an In/Out referendum in 2010, our membership of the EU would have been secured for another generation.
The politics of Scotland are particularly vexed. One point which may be worth considering goes like this:
Boris has no intention of losing Scotland on his watch, even though without Scotland he has better electoral chances. In current circumstances Labour have virtually no chance of forming a government without SNP support. In the next GE everyone will know that a vote for Labour is a vote to give SNP a central place in government and a second referendum when they want, as part of the Faustian pact. This increases Tory chances as against Labour in England. Boris could call a second referendum and try to win it in 2022/2023. But by doing so shoots his own fox and loses his election ammunition. So after the next election is the earliest for a second referendum.
No way that Labour would allow the SNP to join the Government - ie no Coalition.A minority Labour Government would be much more likely to dare the SNP to bring it down - as in March 1979. The latter did not work out well for the SNP at the consequent election.
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
One interesting question is what happens to those large Lib Dem 2nd place votes in the SE constituencies next time.
Personally, I think they only stick & gain if a moderate Labour Government looks like it will take power. Otherwise, I think they stagnate or maybe even fall back a bit.
I am betting on Guildford and Winchester as probable LD gains
I don't think it's all Clegg, not by a long shot. I just don't see any Lib Dems arguing for, y'know, liberalism? It's like they've forgotten how.
I keep meaning to write a thread header on this. But I need to be arsed first.
The truth is "liberal" can mean whatever you want it to mean - rather like conservatism and indeed socialism and social democracy. The current Government may call itself Conservative but it's part social democrat and part Liberal Unionist from my perspective.
I do actually agree with this point, but that also makes the sort of ideological pretences of the main parties and their core supporters, as well as their purported ideological objections to their opponent parties, bluntly, a pile of old cobblers.
There are Liberal parties in the world which are conservative, Conservative parties which are pretty liberal. It's true the name doesn't mean much. But our parties pretend their ideologies are important, and many supporters act like that is true as well.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I'm making a possibly controversial statement here but I am predicting Labour repeats its 2017 performance in Scotland, i.e. gets up to and around 10 seats
Re the mine: if it's coking coal for steel production, then I'd want to know who the customer is. I think it's highly likely that GFG / Liberty Steel are not long for this world.
(Sanjeev Gupta used to be a friend of mine at University.)
The plan was 15% UK and the rest for export. I don't know about the technicalities around it, but I understand this is a private endeavour. I guess the risk is they start building it and then pull the plug if they think it won't be economic.
Why is the British Green Party so moronic? They make me feel like jacking in my career and founding a single issue dedicated environmentalism party.
When May was PM, Labour was led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems were going down their Ignore Democracy rabbit hole, my prevailing feeling was a “plague on your houses”. At that point I’d have loved to be able to vote for a party that campaigned on a single issue of appropriate state intervention to cure the market failure of environmental damage and nudge the private sector in the right direction. But the Green Party are such morons, I didn’t vote at all.
Are the various European Green parties so batty?
You're not specific about what you dislike, but the British Greens are unusual in that they politically very close to Corbyn's agenda but culturally very different from Labour - their conference is distinctly counter-culture, which Corbyn and McDonnell really are not. Caroline Lucas is good at what she does, though, and punches well above her weight.
German Greens are close to power and have become strikingly centrist, to the point that coalition with the Christian Democrats is not an outlandish idea - they are anti-nuclear but then so are the CDU. French Greens have two choices, one left-wing and one centrist.
Nonsense like the 6pm man curfew.
A curfew like that could find a lot of self-identifying women around after 6PM.
I could easily see us getting a strongly Woke take on this in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, with a WLM or FLM equivalent movement off the back of it with months and months of narcisstic self-absorbed virtue-signalling by the usual fanatics, whilst pompously preaching the trendiest language to use and behaviour to exhibit at everyone else.
Ugh. Companies, banks, corporations and HR departments will all get in on the act, and your Facebook and LinkedIn will be full of it, and you'll be encouraged to join in, and it will be extremely irritating.
I'm not even sure I'm joking. These are the times we live in.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I think I would much rather take the evidence of the census than an opinion poll.
The census didn't offer as many options as the poll did, the fact No is back in front in the latest independence polling confirms most Scots still feel at least partly British even if Scottish is their main identity
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
I'm making a possibly controversial statement here but I am predicting Labour repeats its 2017 performance in Scotland, i.e. gets up to and around 10 seats
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I think I would much rather take the evidence of the census than an opinion poll.
The census didn't offer as many options as the poll did, the fact No is back in front in the latest independence polling confirms most Scots still feel at least partly British even if Scottish is their main identity
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
Well that’s not possible, either on the form or in reality. Glad we have another No for the gang 😌
You say that, and to be fair it probably is a nonsense but how does Ed Miliband fill out his census form ?
I'm making a possibly controversial statement here but I am predicting Labour repeats its 2017 performance in Scotland, i.e. gets up to and around 10 seats
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I think I would much rather take the evidence of the census than an opinion poll.
Possibly, although there are some reasons to lie on a census form (notably the fact it is being conducted by the Government and has your name on it) that don't apply to opinion polls, and there are various campaigns often around the Census (e.g. the Jedi religion thing).
The tuition fees is an absolute disaster, a ticking time bomb with most fees never being paid off, rendering the whole system pointless.
Graduate tax and be done with it
How is a graduate tax any more fair than what we have now. Its essentially a capped graduate tax already, but only a graduate tax for Millenials and younger.
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
One interesting question is what happens to those large Lib Dem 2nd place votes in the SE constituencies next time.
Personally, I think they only stick & gain if a moderate Labour Government looks like it will take power. Otherwise, I think they stagnate or maybe even fall back a bit.
I am betting on Guildford and Winchester as probable LD gains
Winchester is possible, with the right candidate and national campaign. It zig-zags all over the place, although it has a strong rural hinterland.
I'd be more confident of the Conservatives holding Guildford, actually, particularly if the economy is recovering well and all Brexit issues are done and dusted. There's a strong core vote there and a lot of older (60+) residents.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
On the general subject of Lib Dem targets, they actually have very few marginals left to go for, and of those only two are in the statistical region of the South West of England. One of those is Cheltenham, which doesn't count in most peoples' definition of the West Country; the other is St Ives, which has a Tory majority of about 4,000.
The next best target anywhere in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset or Dorset is now Wells, which has a Tory majority of 10,000 and probably only comes under threat in the event of a substantial Conservative collapse.
At present, pre-boundary revision, there are 15 Lib Dem targets available on a swing of 5% or less. Of these, nine - Wimbledon, Carshalton & Wallington, Winchester, Cambridgeshire South, Esher & Walton, Lewes, Guildford, Eastbourne and Cities of London & Westminster - are in London and the South East.
Why is the British Green Party so moronic? They make me feel like jacking in my career and founding a single issue dedicated environmentalism party.
When May was PM, Labour was led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems were going down their Ignore Democracy rabbit hole, my prevailing feeling was a “plague on your houses”. At that point I’d have loved to be able to vote for a party that campaigned on a single issue of appropriate state intervention to cure the market failure of environmental damage and nudge the private sector in the right direction. But the Green Party are such morons, I didn’t vote at all.
Are the various European Green parties so batty?
You're not specific about what you dislike, but the British Greens are unusual in that they politically very close to Corbyn's agenda but culturally very different from Labour - their conference is distinctly counter-culture, which Corbyn and McDonnell really are not. Caroline Lucas is good at what she does, though, and punches well above her weight.
German Greens are close to power and have become strikingly centrist, to the point that coalition with the Christian Democrats is not an outlandish idea - they are anti-nuclear but then so are the CDU. French Greens have two choices, one left-wing and one centrist.
Nonsense like the 6pm man curfew.
A curfew like that could find a lot of self-identifying women around after 6PM.
I could easily see us getting a strongly Woke take on this in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, with a WLM or FLM equivalent movement off the back of it with months and months of narcisstic self-absorbed virtue-signalling by the usual fanatics, whilst pompously preaching the trendiest language to use and behaviour to exhibit at everyone else.
Ugh. Companies, banks, corporations and HR departments will all get in on the act, and your Facebook and LinkedIn will be full of it, and you'll be encouraged to join in, and it will be extremely irritating.
I'm not even sure I'm joking. These are the times we live in.
Been on the sauce early again?
I really detest the use of woke by the likes of you. Today's "politically correct" - so tiring and lazy
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I think I would much rather take the evidence of the census than an opinion poll.
The census didn't offer as many options as the poll did, the fact No is back in front in the latest independence polling confirms most Scots still feel at least partly British even if Scottish is their main identity
No being back in front is primarily driven by the SNP shenanigans. It has very little to do with how 'British' they feel.
Of course it does. It is waverers who feel at least partly British who won it for No in 2014 and are now back to No as No Deal Brexit has been avoided, the vaccination programme is going well and the SNP are ripping themselves apart
GSK? I guess the EC will be slagging it off shortly.
It's actually an American drug discovered by Vir Biotechnology, GSK is just the partner.
Glaxo seems to be terribly out of fashion at the moment with the 6+% dividend yield and 11 x eps.
Presumably they have a bunch of drugs facing patent expiry where profits will decline sharply. (I don't know this, it's just what I'd assume.)
Yes. The problem of big pharma is the same as movie studios. They need a blockbuster every now and again to pay for the stinkers. They also like sequels as sure fire money spinners.
This mine must be allowed. It is the worst type of tokenism that this should be mired in delay whilst we import coal, and people could be earning money.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Ed Miliband confirmed Labour is now the party of North London, not the working class North
I don't think that's ever been in doubt for Ed 'the ordinary folk of Dartmouth Park' Miliband.
The day we announce that we will be making wind turbines again, rather than importing them, we also announce that we won't be using local ingredients for the steel. Stupid.
Moving bad things offshore does nothing for climate change...
The Lib Dems were unlucky. They bet the ranch on Remain, in 2019, and could easily have won 25 seats. But they won 11, because they couldn't quite overcome huge Tory majorities in Surrey, and the M4 and M3 corridors. At the same time, they've lost for good the support they once had in the South West.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
One interesting question is what happens to those large Lib Dem 2nd place votes in the SE constituencies next time.
Personally, I think they only stick & gain if a moderate Labour Government looks like it will take power. Otherwise, I think they stagnate or maybe even fall back a bit.
I am betting on Guildford and Winchester as probable LD gains
Winchester is possible, with the right candidate and national campaign. It zig-zags all over the place, although it has a strong rural hinterland.
I'd be more confident of the Conservatives holding Guildford, actually, particularly if the economy is recovering well and all Brexit issues are done and dusted. There's a strong core vote there and a lot of older (60+) residents.
Lots of younger commuters and families in Guildford, it is trending left, I think
Re the mine: if it's coking coal for steel production, then I'd want to know who the customer is. I think it's highly likely that GFG / Liberty Steel are not long for this world.
(Sanjeev Gupta used to be a friend of mine at University.)
The plan was 15% UK and the rest for export. I don't know about the technicalities around it, but I understand this is a private endeavour. I guess the risk is they start building it and then pull the plug if they think it won't be economic.
Exactly. It's not like they're asking for Government handouts - unlike the renewables industry.
This is a great opportunity to face down the sorts of little scrotes who make it their business to interfere with peoples' livelihoods just so someone can feel a little more smug when looking at a sheet of carbon figures, but not a SCRAP less coal has been used or carbon entered the sky.
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
The number of climate alarmists who vote Tory now are miniscule, if climate change is already your main concern you will already be voting Labour or Green.
The working class voters in the North who won the Tories their majority however will not be happy if the government abandons this proposed new mine
I don't think it's all Clegg, not by a long shot. I just don't see any Lib Dems arguing for, y'know, liberalism? It's like they've forgotten how.
I keep meaning to write a thread header on this. But I need to be arsed first.
Not this "I'd vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were genuinely Liberal and Democratic" nonsense.
Usually peddled from the Right, it's predicated on the notion the only true liberalism is the classical liberalism of the 19th Century.
The truth is "liberal" can mean whatever you want it to mean - rather like conservatism and indeed socialism and social democracy. The current Government may call itself Conservative but it's part social democrat and part Liberal Unionist from my perspective.
I doubt many would vote for it because it's Conservative - they might vote for it because it's not Labour I suppose but if anything "of the left" is to be feared and opposed, fair enough.
The Orange Bookers were, I suppose, the most recent incarnation of a more traditional liberal ethos and it's no surprise there was a philosophical convergence with Cameron's "liberal conservatism" - that's why the Coalition happened because in 2010 the LDs and Conservatives converged enough for it to happen. Since then, the Conservative shave long stopped being liberal and to some extent the LDs have as well but the point of liberalism is it is constantly evolving and being re-defined as society changes.
If Johnson represents Conservatism for the early 21st Century, then why should Davey throwback to earlier notions of Liberalism - he and the party need to be about re-defining liberalism for today - oddly enough, on the social side, the liberals have won.
I love the way you've made an argument for me and rebutted it before I've even said anything.
I've filled out 3/4 of the census for my household. My other half will probably ask me to fill out her individual part. Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
< I'd say British was at least as popular a self-description as English amongst the English prior to 1997. (The two were probably used interchangeably, and if you were from Essex, say, those parts of Britain which were not England were so far away that the need to distinguish between the two rarely arose).
English has become a much more popular self-definition over the past 20-odd years. I put that partly down to devolution. It's instructive to look at old pictures of England football matches (80s and before). Very few St. George's Crosses in the crowd; lots of Union Flags.
The forthcoming Census may be informative - there are a growing number of people who see themselves only as British - not English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
That's a brave assertion.
At this point I would go back to the 2001 and 2011 results to see what's been happening in that regard so far this century, but I need to go and make dinner or else husband will waste away...
Husband has now been fed.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
If anything has happened since then other than the British figures nosediving everywhere then I'll be astonished.
I'll be filling out English and British this year.
Did the census tonight!
All three in my house filled out English and British. I must admit I didn’t think too much about it. What else were we supposed to put?
Well, I agree with you but according to the stats upthread we'd seem to be in the minority!
Really? I can’t read the earlier pages because of the fabled iPhone loading errors. Can you summarise?
I think we're only 9% of respondents, or something.
To be fair, I'm not sure that's right but I haven't checked myself.
It does seem rather low.
Really? What do most people put then?
REPOST:
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
A poll 3 years later found only 25% identified as Scottish not British, 25% said they were more Scottish than British but still partly British, 33% said they were equally Scottish and British and 20% only British.
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
I think I would much rather take the evidence of the census than an opinion poll.
The census didn't offer as many options as the poll did, the fact No is back in front in the latest independence polling confirms most Scots still feel at least partly British even if Scottish is their main identity
Voting "no" in an independence referendum isn't really the same as "feeling British" (and indeed voting "yes" isn't necessarily about feeling Scottish). You wouldn't have needed to feel British to consider that the "yes" campaign answers on the currency weren't great, or that Scotland may be worse off at least for a period.
The tuition fees is an absolute disaster, a ticking time bomb with most fees never being paid off, rendering the whole system pointless.
Graduate tax and be done with it
Plus highest fees for subjects like business studies, economics and law which have high demand and high graduate earnings and then lower fees for subjects we need which have fewer students
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
The number of climate alarmists who vote Tory now are miniscule, if climate change is already your main concern you will already be voting Labour or Tory.
The working class voters in the North who won the Tories their majority however will not be happy if the government abandons this proposed new mine
Why do the Tories go on about climate change all the time then? Explain that one.
Climate change is the main concern, it's the future of our planet for goodness sake
The tuition fees is an absolute disaster, a ticking time bomb with most fees never being paid off, rendering the whole system pointless.
Graduate tax and be done with it
Surely that's worse, I paid off my student loan ages ago. Under your system I'd still be paying 9% of my salary above £18k in perpetuity which to me is a disaster and I would absolutely have not bothered with university.
The fees/loan system is broken, but a graduate tax is completely rubbish and disadvantages people for their whole lives just for wanting to get educated.
The tuition fees is an absolute disaster, a ticking time bomb with most fees never being paid off, rendering the whole system pointless.
Graduate tax and be done with it
Does repayment in full actually matter?
When it gets written off, it will be paid off by the middle aged, many of whom will have been paying the graduate tax. Some will pay nothing, others twice.
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
The number of climate alarmists who vote Tory now are miniscule, if climate change is already your main concern you will already be voting Labour or Tory.
The working class voters in the North who won the Tories their majority however will not be happy if the government abandons this proposed new mine
Why do the Tories go on about climate change all the time then? Explain that one.
Climate change is the main concern, it's the future of our planet for goodness sake
Most of our energy is already provided by renewables, so 1 new mine creating lots of well paid new jobs in the redwall will barely make a ripple on global climate change
The politics of Scotland are particularly vexed. One point which may be worth considering goes like this:
Boris has no intention of losing Scotland on his watch, even though without Scotland he has better electoral chances. In current circumstances Labour have virtually no chance of forming a government without SNP support. In the next GE everyone will know that a vote for Labour is a vote to give SNP a central place in government and a second referendum when they want, as part of the Faustian pact. This increases Tory chances as against Labour in England. Boris could call a second referendum and try to win it in 2022/2023. But by doing so shoots his own fox and loses his election ammunition. So after the next election is the earliest for a second referendum.
No way that Labour would allow the SNP to join the Government - ie no Coalition.A minority Labour Government would be much more likely to dare the SNP to bring it down - as in March 1979. The latter did not work out well for the SNP at the consequent election.
You don't know any of that when you vote - which is the time that matters.
Was it you who recommended The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp to me?
I enjoyed it. What struck me the most was that despite it being filmed *before* D-Day in 1943 (and Winston Churchill was reportedly not that keen on it) it feels remarkably contemporary and relevant for a film of that age. Except the trophy hunting, which I think would upset some today!
Great insight into English emotional repression, and the challenges of ageing, whilst also underlying how attitudes can benignly cement in someone.
Fascinating. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it. It's just an extraordinary film, especially given that it was made during the war. Churchill tried to have it banned, because he thought it would damage morale and sap the fighting spirit.
Although that begs the question - how did they get hold of so much army material and various rationed items including colour film?
There was always a suspicion that Churchill kicked up a fuss to raise its profile in America...
Comments
Put "No religion" down, would probably have checked both christian and no religion if it was possible tbh.
The Greens basically get young professionals on low incomes, and left wing radicals.
At present, the Conservative coalaition of shire voters, voters in small towns, and working class voters outside of core cities is the winning hand.
I went to look at the census data. 2001 had no identity question in England (which apparently caused ructions at the time since it was included in the rest of the country,) but by 2011 this had been rectified.
So, ten years ago, 60% of the English population responded as English only, 20% British only, 9% as English and British, and the remainder various other things. In Wales it's a remarkably similar split: 58% Welsh only, 17% British only and 7% as Welsh and British.
In Scotland, 62% said Scottish only, 18% Scottish and British and just 8% as British only, which concurs with the general opinion on which part of the UK is liable to fall off first.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
Which - of course - will only increase scepticism further.
I love churches, I love the calmness, like Christmas Carols, music on Good Friday, and I even like the cantor of some of the priests. I was married in a church, christened in a church, and would like to have my funeral service in a chirch. However, whenever I hear the Jesus stuff or read the preachiness about saving yourself and sacrificing and giving yourself over to Him in the Bible I think it's barkingz and I have the same reaction as I have to anti-vaxxers.
I think I'm basically culturally Christian, and a very English CofE version at that too as I dig The Queen heading it up, so for me it's simply a matter of tradition and identity. Something I do and an institution I like.
Part of the triumph of both Boris and pre-2010 Lib Dems was to deny that choice; the choice has already devoured one of them.
Is the malignancy of rumour and innuendo spreading?
Only 18% of English respondents said they were English only
https://www.britishfuture.org/state-of-the-union-scottish-poll-results/
Plus most of our energy now comes from renewables anyway
Usually peddled from the Right, it's predicated on the notion the only true liberalism is the classical liberalism of the 19th Century.
The truth is "liberal" can mean whatever you want it to mean - rather like conservatism and indeed socialism and social democracy. The current Government may call itself Conservative but it's part social democrat and part Liberal Unionist from my perspective.
I doubt many would vote for it because it's Conservative - they might vote for it because it's not Labour I suppose but if anything "of the left" is to be feared and opposed, fair enough.
The Orange Bookers were, I suppose, the most recent incarnation of a more traditional liberal ethos and it's no surprise there was a philosophical convergence with Cameron's "liberal conservatism" - that's why the Coalition happened because in 2010 the LDs and Conservatives converged enough for it to happen. Since then, the Conservative shave long stopped being liberal and to some extent the LDs have as well but the point of liberalism is it is constantly evolving and being re-defined as society changes.
If Johnson represents Conservatism for the early 21st Century, then why should Davey throwback to earlier notions of Liberalism - he and the party need to be about re-defining liberalism for today - oddly enough, on the social side, the liberals have won.
Cumbrian People's Front?
I don't think those figures say much at all about the most likely part of the UK to "fall off". The key difference between nationalism in Scotland versus Wales is it is expressed more as political in the former and more as cultural in the latter. It isn't as such that people feel more Scottish in Scotland than they do Welsh in Wales, it's that feeling Welsh isn't as much of a political statement.
Labour's comments on this are particularly shameful and reprehensible.
Labour 2021: you can't open a single coal mine!
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1370104263943282690?s=20
There are the Scottish Greens. There are the Northern Irish Greens. And there are the EnglandandWales Greens.
The Welsh Greens voted to remain part of the EnglandandWales Greens (unlike the Scots and the N. Irish). They are a region within England, as far as the EnglandandWales Greens are constituted.
So, they are not a separate party.
But, since October 2020, they now back independence for Wales.
In other words, they are going into the Senedd elections as a party backing Welsh independence, but they are organised as a region within the EnglandandWales Greens.
That is as nonsensical as the 6 pm curfew.
Anyway, you get the gist.
Of course, it's not like Moderna and Pfizer are without their problems, with at least one death, and some serious issues with anaphylaxis.
For one reason or another, AstraZeneca is not being used in a bunch of places. Switzerland refused its authorisation. The US hasn't authorised it. South Africa, Norway and Iceland have suspended use of it.
All these things tie into a - largely undeserved - narrative that it either isn't effective, or is in some way unsafe.
Personally, I think they only stick & gain if a moderate Labour Government looks like it will take power. Otherwise, I think they stagnate or maybe even fall back a bit.
If it is good for steel, on the other hand, then not only ought it to be allowed, surely it must be allowed? Given that the steel is necessary, and the coal is necessary for making the steel, then it's actually better that we use a local source than expend additional resources on importing it from abroad?
(Sanjeev Gupta used to be a friend of mine at University.)
Labour had after all closed hundreds while in government.
London found that out, sadly too late after he'd just left power - and now look at the state of the Tories there. "Never again".
How else do you explain a man who in 2019 states Labour is pursuing communism by increasing corporation tax and then who in 2021 steals that policy and says the Tories will increase it further?
I don't agree with George Osborne but he has principles and he sticks to them. He thinks it is the wrong decision because it always is. Johnson just shapeshifts because that is what people of his kind do.
Once they did, they got torn in two by horses.....
The warning signs were there - in the ridiculousness of their position on an EU referendum. They wanted an In/Out referendum in 2008; might have wanted one in 2010, but prevented the Coalition talking about it; but by 2013 didn’t want one.
If the LibDems had supported an In/Out referendum in 2010, our membership of the EU would have been secured for another generation.
There are Liberal parties in the world which are conservative, Conservative parties which are pretty liberal. It's true the name doesn't mean much. But our parties pretend their ideologies are important, and many supporters act like that is true as well.
It isn't. Not nearly as much as people think.
Graduate tax and be done with it
Ugh. Companies, banks, corporations and HR departments will all get in on the act, and your Facebook and LinkedIn will be full of it, and you'll be encouraged to join in, and it will be extremely irritating.
I'm not even sure I'm joking. These are the times we live in.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1370071327340687360?s=20
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
I'd be more confident of the Conservatives holding Guildford, actually, particularly if the economy is recovering well and all Brexit issues are done and dusted. There's a strong core vote there and a lot of older (60+) residents.
Feeding future undermining of local democratic processes, and encouraging national single-issue lobby bullying of local councils.
Idiots.
The next best target anywhere in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset or Dorset is now Wells, which has a Tory majority of 10,000 and probably only comes under threat in the event of a substantial Conservative collapse.
At present, pre-boundary revision, there are 15 Lib Dem targets available on a swing of 5% or less. Of these, nine - Wimbledon, Carshalton & Wallington, Winchester, Cambridgeshire South, Esher & Walton, Lewes, Guildford, Eastbourne and Cities of London & Westminster - are in London and the South East.
I really detest the use of woke by the likes of you. Today's "politically correct" - so tiring and lazy
Moving bad things offshore does nothing for climate change...
This is a great opportunity to face down the sorts of little scrotes who make it their business to interfere with peoples' livelihoods just so someone can feel a little more smug when looking at a sheet of carbon figures, but not a SCRAP less coal has been used or carbon entered the sky.
The working class voters in the North who won the Tories their majority however will not be happy if the government abandons this proposed new mine
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1370069079948689409?s=20
Why don't you wait and see?
+5 to the SNP, this man is a liability
Climate change is the main concern, it's the future of our planet for goodness sake
The fees/loan system is broken, but a graduate tax is completely rubbish and disadvantages people for their whole lives just for wanting to get educated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Death_of_Colonel_Blimp#Original_release_and_contemporary_reception