I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That is why in democracies parties put up manifestos. You don't get to vote for a party but say "I don't give them a mandate for this section of the manifesto". You either swallow it all, or you don't.
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
Mandate is one of the most pointless words in politics. People claim a mandate for things not in their manifestoes when they want to, others reject the idea there is a mandate just because the party which won had it in their manifesto.
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That is why in democracies parties put up manifestos. You don't get to vote for a party but say "I don't give them a mandate for this section of the manifesto". You either swallow it all, or you don't.
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
I opposed David Cameron wanting to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands, but I had to accept it was government policy since they won the election and I voted for the party.
British political tradition, because of parliamentary system, is MUCH more respectful toward party manifestos,than American political tradition, under separation of powers, is to party platforms.
"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.
But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.
Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."
There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards. Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.
If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.
As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.
We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!
There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.
The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.
Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.
Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.
Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.
So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.
Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
Great! We are choosing to keep the same standards as the Europeans at least for now. Can we remove the paperwork and SPS checks we insisted on now? We wanted to determine our own standards and having done so we've decided to keep their standards. Huzzah!
No we can't since the EU are the ones refusing to grant equivalence. If they choose to grant equivalence, then the paperwork can be removed. If they don't, then we can keep the paperwork and SPS checks forever.
There is an entertaining blame game because you need the UK to be seen to win. Whatever. The UK could fix this tomorrow. And won't. I have no doubt the EU have stopped wasting their time trying to work with our increasingly stupid positions.
Meanwhile, in reality, there remains no difference between our respective food standards. You can blame them, I can blame us, they can blame each other. Not only does it get us nowhere, it also achieves nothing. Equivalence is alignment is equivalence when our equivalent rules remain aligned to their rules and will continue to be.
The issue is they were insisting on dynamic alignment which doesn’t work
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
To be fair they tried it with the whole of GB in Jan
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
UK and US almost went to war in 1859 over a pig, in the San Juan Islands between Washington Territory and the Colony of Vancouver Island.
"On June 15, 1859, exactly thirteen years after the adoption of the Oregon Treaty, the ambiguity led to direct conflict. Lyman Cutlar, an American farmer who had moved onto San Juan Island claiming rights to live there under the Donation Land Claim Act, found a Large Black pig rooting in his garden[2][6][10] and eating his tubers. This was not the first occurrence. Cutlar was so upset that he took aim and shot the pig, killing it.
It turned out that the pig was owned by an Irishman, Charles Griffin, who was employed by the Hudson's Bay Company to run the sheep ranch on the island.[2][6][10] He also owned several pigs that he allowed to roam freely. The two had lived in peace until this incident. Cutlar offered $10 (equivalent to $280 in 2019) to Griffin to compensate for the pig, but Griffin was unsatisfied with this offer and demanded $100 (equivalent to $2,800 in 2019). Following this reply, Cutlar believed he should not have to pay for the pig because the pig had been trespassing on his land. One likely apocryphal account has Cutlar saying to Griffin, "It was eating my potatoes"; and Griffin replying, "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."[10] When British authorities threatened to arrest Cutlar, American settlers called for military protection.
We kept the pig, and the islands. For once, justice triumphed.
Grade 11 Canadian History comes flooding back...
Personally think US should have insisted on full reparations for the pain & suffering visited upon a peaceable American farmer by a boorish British pig.
Like all of Vancouver Island. Or - in a spirit of generosity - we'd settle for just the southern part south of the 49th Parallel!
Absolutely crappy weather here. Pissing it down. Am off to have supper with a friend and can't bloody wait. The place has blankets and hot water bottles apparently.
My wife calls dinner supper too. She knows it mildly irritates. Isn''t supper a snackette in front of the telly with a hot drink and slippers type thing? Is this a class thing?
Mind you, in my family we always used to call lunch dinner, so who am I to judge?
I'm sitting outside and it's fucking freezing. Pretty grim but I just got the clothes wrong.
Above average next week albeit showery.
Good growing weather as we gardeners call it.
What’s the chances we yet again go from too chilly to too hot in the space of a fortnight? Probably some time in late June. Summers are often way too hot down here these days, I find.
Starmer urging people on social media to 'vote with their heart' now is pretty desperate stuff. No thanks I'll vote with my head. What's wrong with suggesting a few good policies? At least Corbyn had some interesting ideas rather than just begging rhetoric.
We don’t really expect oppositions to be fizzing with policy this stage of the cycle do we? One year in Cameron was doing the Vote Blue Go Green Nogging Nog thing.
So in that regard its a getting bit lazy to repetitively to slag Starmer off now as boring, charisma less, lack of policies, etc - since when have those things been huge liability in politics? Starmer should do okay as offering a safe place for a vote, especially mid term - though probably struggle against Rishi in GE.
People forget how the Tory upper hand recent years was down to Corbyn, and pundits underestimate how the country wants to move on from Boris.
Calling Rear-Adm HYUFD to get HMS Epping Forest out of dry-dock!
HMS Victory could be pressed back into service, with a bit of refurbishment. A Johnson administration speciality IIRC.
HMS Victory never left service. She is still under commission and is the flagship of the First Sea Lord.
I hope other countries do the same, and we can put it out to sea against whatever Admiral Yi's flagship was called for sport.
The US Navy would have an advantage as their oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, is still afloat.
Written when US government was considering decomissioning and scrapping USS Constitution:
OLD IRONSIDES Oliver Wendell Holmes
Aye tear her tattered ensign down Long has it waved on high, And many an eye has danced to see That banner in the sky; Beneath it rung the battle shout, And burst the cannon's roar;— The meteor of the ocean air Shall sweep the clouds no more.
Her deck, once red with heroes' blood, Where knelt the vanquished foe, When winds were hurrying o'er the flood, And waves were white below, No more shall feel the victor's tread, Or know the conquered knee;— The harpies of the shore shall pluck The eagle of the sea!
Oh, better that her shattered hulk Should sink beneath the wave; Her thunders shook the mighty deep, And there should be her grave; Nail to the mast her holy flag, Set every threadbare sail, And give her to the god of storms, The lightning and the gale!
This poem caused such a ruckus that the politicos reconsidered - and the harpies went hungry.
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That's how our system works and always has done. Those who lose the election will continue to oppose and point out, rightly, that not everyone who voted for the winner will support every single thing the winner was proposing. Not even the winners support every single thing they propose in their manifestoes.
Nevertheless, a party puts up a platform, and people go in knowing that if that party wins they will, rightly, regard it as a mandate to proceed with the things they said they would do in that platform.
People may still not like them pushing ahead with that platform, but it is not at all unreasonable fort a party to do so if they win, particularly when it is such a major part of what they are offering. People either support that policy, or they do not oppose it enough to vote for someone promising not to do it.
If the SNP win they can pretty reasonably seek to advance their agenda. If they do not get a majority but can get a majority of the Parliament to seek to advance their agenda they can pretty reasonably do that.
I’ve no issue with the SNP advancing their agenda or Westminster taking into consideration the votes for the Scottish parliament. I’m just pointing out it’s not the resounding case that Philip believes
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That is why in democracies parties put up manifestos. You don't get to vote for a party but say "I don't give them a mandate for this section of the manifesto". You either swallow it all, or you don't.
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
I opposed David Cameron wanting to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands, but I had to accept it was government policy since they won the election and I voted for the party.
Sure but equally you don’t get to argue it’s a decisive argument why we should ignore the law of the land.
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
To be honest, I agreed with general drift of punditry until today. I now think we are slow to recognise late swing in this campaign to Labour and reasons for it.
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
To be honest, I agreed with general drift of punditry until today. I now think we are slow to recognise late swing in this campaign to Labour and reasons for it.
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
The candidate in the West Midlands, Liam Byrne, shares your view of a late swing. Can't see Hartlepool as owt other than comfortable Tory myself. This is a position I have held since the start.
Tough schedule for Man United. Tomorrow Roma. Sunday Villa. Tuesday Leicester Thursday Liverpool.
That is absurd
I don’t think his style is popular anymore. There were so many on the centre and right who didn’t favour him in first place, they are being joined by working class Labour to Tory switchers, now seeing Boris as crass and without a firm grip.
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
To be honest, I agreed with general drift of punditry until today. I now think we are slow to recognise late swing in this campaign to Labour and reasons for it.
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
If I see another Tory leaflet with "our plan for x" in it, I will not be held responsible for my actions.
On topic, I think Michael is right to highlight the threat to the LibDems from the Greens. This is the first time since the early 1990s that the Greens are making a real push in the local elections, and they are helped by the fact that there is very little traditional canvassing this year.
I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.
The smart LDs and Greens are working together.
That's happening both above the radar (one party standing down) and below the radar (not bothering to campaign) here in Oxfordshire. But I've seen signs of it elsewhere - I've just seen a northern Green candidate approvingly tweet an interview with his supposed LD rival in an LD/Labour marginal.
The parties should merge, and the Greens should publicly absorb the LDs so their brand is retained. While activists are often scathing about them, the average voter considers them lightweights but not objectionable in the main - hence them picking up votes in leafy Solihull and urban Labour areas in various places. The Greens could be the main protest vote party again, the Lib Dems may never be able to cleanse the brand to do so.
Have some Lib Dem MPs resign in protest and the remainder get little to no formal leadership roles in the new Green Party. Then over 6 months the 'Independent Lib Dems' can one by one defect to them or enter into pacts for their constituency, so the Greens are seen to have taken over the party rather than mixing the brands. The Lib Dems are pretty Green already, and the Greens could do with some people less committed to left-wing economics to ensure the party doesn't become toxic to disaffected Tories.
What the Greens would benefit from the is Lib Dem voter data and local government strength, which even now far exceeds theirs. It might be difficult to keep all the local parties on board, but if it could be done amicably it would be the best path forwards for both sides.
The problem, though, is that the official Green Party policy platform is enviro-fascism, so not clear that meshes well with the views of most LDs.
(If the Greens were to be a bit more like moderate Green parties on the continent, then that might change, of course.)
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
The Tory in my ward actually knocked on our door last night (well, his wife did, he was doing next door). She seemed nice enough, but when she asked what I'd like him to do if elected I almost said "turn the clock back 9 years and put a stop to those stupid tower blocks!"
Interesting thing, my dad - who's never been especially keen on the Tories - is voting Tory tomorrow (not in the PCC election - he's abstaining on that). It's the wallpaper that's done it. He's furious about the media banging on about that story.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
Yes, just as Labour struggles with a coalition of metropolitan and WC traditionalists, the Tories are going to struggle to keep a coalition between pork-barrel northerners and financial Conservatives in the South.
Political tectonic plates shifting are a problem for both.
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
To be honest, I agreed with general drift of punditry until today. I now think we are slow to recognise late swing in this campaign to Labour and reasons for it.
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
Even labour's own polling from the constituency confirm they are losing the seat
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That is why in democracies parties put up manifestos. You don't get to vote for a party but say "I don't give them a mandate for this section of the manifesto". You either swallow it all, or you don't.
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
I opposed David Cameron wanting to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands, but I had to accept it was government policy since they won the election and I voted for the party.
Sure but equally you don’t get to argue it’s a decisive argument why we should ignore the law of the land.
Indeed, the law of the land is that we hold elections and that is how we resolve our differences. I respect that, because the alternative is that we resolve our differences with bullets or worse.
There's an election tomorrow. Lets see what results we get.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
She came to England in 1938, so a love of Germany unlikely, but the Fleet was at anchor in the picture. Czechia not a country known for its naval prowress either!
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to "build back better" defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
Fair enough - I certainly can't claim any deep insight into the priorities of that age group, other than to say that Uni/non-Uni is often a dividing line of sorts. The only other point I'd make on that is whether it's just what people that age talk about, or if they are actually energised enough to campaign/protest/vote along those lines as well.
I can confirm the generational difference from some personal experience - younger office colleagues, not into party politics as far as I know (and not all graduates), pressed vigorously for all emails to indicate the preferred gender use in their email signatures, and when that was finally agreed there were comments that we were very late getting round to it and organisations where friends work had done it ages ago. They are very keen to back BLM and similar causes.
It feels like a sea change similar to the change in attitudes 20 or so years ago towards gays - it's not that it comes up in everyday discussion (and nobody every talks about being woke), just a steady underlying assumption. The concept of white privilege and unconscious bias which puzzles some here is seen similarly to climate change - yes, they know some people don't get it, but they can't imagine why as it seems obvious to them.
Not voting Tory is a given among the youngest who express a political opinion, but they don't feel especially pro- any party, except perhaps the Greens, and they generally vote without enthusiasm for the best-placed non-Tory.
I've always thought a flip side to the pronoun thing is what if people dont want to get into a personal detail like that at work?
Obviously we dont want people to feel like they cannot be open about who they are, or in some bizarre it's ok so long as no one asks and no one tells situation, but voluntary personal questions on things like sexuality or religion people often dont see as an employers business other than avoiding discrimination.
It's not really a personal question. It's just telling people how you wish to be addressed. I assume that if you don't put anything, people will just use pronouns that society would assume, which is fine.
I personally don't put "my pronouns" on anything because they are just what society would expect, so why would I bother? To be honest even if someone addressed me as "she" I don't think I'd be bothered either way.
I agree with that, actually.
Where I'd take umbrage is if I was compelled to put my pronouns on my email signature.
What you've laid out is fine.
The other point (especially on email signatures) is that it's helpful in an environment where you can't necessarily tell a person's gender just from their name, either because it's ambiguous or because you're both part of a large multinational organisation and you aren't familiar with the naming conventions in their country. However, it's usually easy enough to get round the issue somehow, and it's clearly not why proponents of the idea push for it.
Would have been handy for my misapprehensions about Jo Grimond being a woman if every mention of him had had in brackets afterwards "he/his"
My title is Dr and so insurers always ask sex too (maybe they always ask sex* anyway?) but I sometimes get the insurance letters through addressed to "Dr (male) Selebian" and, on one memorable occasion when it was addressed to my wife too "Dr (male) Selebian and Dr (female) Selebian"
*I'll have to check, if they ask for 'gender' I can presumably self-identify as female for a lower premium?
The English language itself provides a neater alternative – doctor and (the archaic) doctress, which would avoid the need for the awkward parentheses. Of course, in most (but not all) roles*, we've adopted the masculine as neuter – which seems sexist to me given that women are in the majority.
*very few people in the UK call landladies landlords, barmaids barmen or waitresses waiters.
Actresses used to be called actresses, but they are now called "actors". Perhaps they got fed up with being connected to a conversation with a bishop?
Not in general usage. In general usage, actress is the dominant term. (I realise you are joking on your latter point).
You can of course now use that quip for any combination, as there are half a dozen female Diocesan Bishops in the CofE, including London.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to build back better defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
I would be happy for any party to express concerns about the government deficit, low interest rates and high house price inflation.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
She came to England in 1938, so a love of Germany unlikely, but the Fleet was at anchor in the picture. Czechia not a country known for its naval prowress either!
One possibility (purely speculative without any evidence) is that she had some family connection with the German Navy, that she (maybe) was NOT ethnic Czech but a German who fled to Czechoslovakia (temporarily) after 1933. Plenty of folks did just that.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
If I see another Tory leaflet with "our plan for x" in it, I will not be held responsible for my actions.
It's shit. I mean, who's advising them on this?
Maybe it's been focused grouped and plays well in the Red Wall, I dunno, but so many core Conservatives I know think it's quasi-Blairite garbage.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
To be honest, I agreed with general drift of punditry until today. I now think we are slow to recognise late swing in this campaign to Labour and reasons for it.
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
The candidate in the West Midlands, Liam Byrne, shares your view of a late swing. Can't see Hartlepool as owt other than comfortable Tory myself. This is a position I have held since the start.
Liam Byrne isn’t going to say otherwise 😀 but the polls and the odds heavily go for a Tory hold. If others think labour will hold Hartlepool or take the W Mids mayoralty they should get down to Ladbrokes for some free money as the odds are great.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
If I see another Tory leaflet with "our plan for x" in it, I will not be held responsible for my actions.
It's shit. I mean, who's advising them on this?
Maybe it's been focused grouped and plays well in the Red Wall, I dunno, but so many core Conservatives I know think it's quasi-Blairite garbage.
Thing is, I don't think it does play well in the red wall. I think the very simplistic calculation has been made that these people, or their predecessors, used to vote Labour, so what they want is Labour policies circa 2001.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
Maybe she was one of those slightly... er.... German Czechs?
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
The Tory in my ward actually knocked on our door last night (well, his wife did, he was doing next door). She seemed nice enough, but when she asked what I'd like him to do if elected I almost said "turn the clock back 9 years and put a stop to those stupid tower blocks!"
Interesting thing, my dad - who's never been especially keen on the Tories - is voting Tory tomorrow (not in the PCC election - he's abstaining on that). It's the wallpaper that's done it. He's furious about the media banging on about that story.
That's.. strange! People vote in unusual ways.
I vote Tory locally for moderation, fiscal soundness, efficient adminstration, choice, respect of heritage, and pragmatism rather than ideology when it comes to policy. I also expect candidates who are willing to pleasantly yank my chain on this.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
Fair enough - I certainly can't claim any deep insight into the priorities of that age group, other than to say that Uni/non-Uni is often a dividing line of sorts. The only other point I'd make on that is whether it's just what people that age talk about, or if they are actually energised enough to campaign/protest/vote along those lines as well.
I can confirm the generational difference from some personal experience - younger office colleagues, not into party politics as far as I know (and not all graduates), pressed vigorously for all emails to indicate the preferred gender use in their email signatures, and when that was finally agreed there were comments that we were very late getting round to it and organisations where friends work had done it ages ago. They are very keen to back BLM and similar causes.
It feels like a sea change similar to the change in attitudes 20 or so years ago towards gays - it's not that it comes up in everyday discussion (and nobody every talks about being woke), just a steady underlying assumption. The concept of white privilege and unconscious bias which puzzles some here is seen similarly to climate change - yes, they know some people don't get it, but they can't imagine why as it seems obvious to them.
Not voting Tory is a given among the youngest who express a political opinion, but they don't feel especially pro- any party, except perhaps the Greens, and they generally vote without enthusiasm for the best-placed non-Tory.
I've always thought a flip side to the pronoun thing is what if people dont want to get into a personal detail like that at work?
Obviously we dont want people to feel like they cannot be open about who they are, or in some bizarre it's ok so long as no one asks and no one tells situation, but voluntary personal questions on things like sexuality or religion people often dont see as an employers business other than avoiding discrimination.
It's not really a personal question. It's just telling people how you wish to be addressed. I assume that if you don't put anything, people will just use pronouns that society would assume, which is fine.
I personally don't put "my pronouns" on anything because they are just what society would expect, so why would I bother? To be honest even if someone addressed me as "she" I don't think I'd be bothered either way.
I agree with that, actually.
Where I'd take umbrage is if I was compelled to put my pronouns on my email signature.
What you've laid out is fine.
The other point (especially on email signatures) is that it's helpful in an environment where you can't necessarily tell a person's gender just from their name, either because it's ambiguous or because you're both part of a large multinational organisation and you aren't familiar with the naming conventions in their country. However, it's usually easy enough to get round the issue somehow, and it's clearly not why proponents of the idea push for it.
Would have been handy for my misapprehensions about Jo Grimond being a woman if every mention of him had had in brackets afterwards "he/his"
My title is Dr and so insurers always ask sex too (maybe they always ask sex* anyway?) but I sometimes get the insurance letters through addressed to "Dr (male) Selebian" and, on one memorable occasion when it was addressed to my wife too "Dr (male) Selebian and Dr (female) Selebian"
*I'll have to check, if they ask for 'gender' I can presumably self-identify as female for a lower premium?
The English language itself provides a neater alternative – doctor and (the archaic) doctress, which would avoid the need for the awkward parentheses. Of course, in most (but not all) roles*, we've adopted the masculine as neuter – which seems sexist to me given that women are in the majority.
*very few people in the UK call landladies landlords, barmaids barmen or waitresses waiters.
Actresses used to be called actresses, but they are now called "actors". Perhaps they got fed up with being connected to a conversation with a bishop?
Not in general usage. In general usage, actress is the dominant term. (I realise you are joking on your latter point).
You can of course now use that quip for any combination, as there are half a dozen female Diocesan Bishops in the CofE, including London.
In India it is common to double title female doctors, for example Dr Mrs Mistry, and sometimes Dr Mr Mistry if in the same practice.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
The whole sad saga of the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Russo-Japanese War is even crazier. Sailed around the world just to get sunk by Admiral Togo at Tshushima.
On great book about it, by Richard Hough, is entitled "The Fleet that Had to Die"
To be fair, we all know Boris Johnson can play to the crowd and for some that will be great. Others may feel the office of Prime Minister should be taken more seriously by the incumbent and it's not quite the post of Court Jester (that's more the Foreign Secretary these days).
Yet, and we have to acknowledge it, Boris Johnson does rapport and empathy well and some love him for that - you couldn't really imagine people wanting to have selfies with Gordon Brown or Theresa May but sometimes Prime Ministers have to be that person who isn't the most popular person in the room (Boris has had to in the past year at times and you can see it doesn't sit well with him).
He wants a Britain that's happy, optimistic, positive and enjoying itself and that's an easy message to sell as having a good time works for most people most of the time.
For now, he chimes with the mood of those people who want to forget the past year and just enjoy themselves and have fun without having to think too much about anything else.
He does well, not because he has brilliant policies, but, and this works on a primal level, he makes people feel good and that's a potent weapon for any politician.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
If I see another Tory leaflet with "our plan for x" in it, I will not be held responsible for my actions.
It's shit. I mean, who's advising them on this?
Maybe it's been focused grouped and plays well in the Red Wall, I dunno, but so many core Conservatives I know think it's quasi-Blairite garbage.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
Your local literature is differen to my local literature.
The front page of mine lists priorities as: "Flood Prevention", "Pothole repair", "Protecting our local libraries". I'm curious which pothole singular will be repaired. 😂
Inside lists: "Improving roads and pavements", "supporting economic growth and new jobs", "supporting children & young people", "protecting and investing in our libraries", "prioritising support for the most vulnerable" and "protecting our environment".
All the kind of stuff I'd expect in local election material.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Actually the fleet was moored at Scapa for a few months before being scuttled. My great grandad commanded a coastal defence converted trawler there throughout WWI so I have an above average interest! Coincidentally one of my dad’s earliest memories was seeing one of the raised battlecruisers being towed to Rosyth for scrapping (they floated it turned turtle I think). Photo of great grandad at the end of the war attached below, he’s the cove to the right of the army officer in the centre of the middle row.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
Fair enough - I certainly can't claim any deep insight into the priorities of that age group, other than to say that Uni/non-Uni is often a dividing line of sorts. The only other point I'd make on that is whether it's just what people that age talk about, or if they are actually energised enough to campaign/protest/vote along those lines as well.
I can confirm the generational difference from some personal experience - younger office colleagues, not into party politics as far as I know (and not all graduates), pressed vigorously for all emails to indicate the preferred gender use in their email signatures, and when that was finally agreed there were comments that we were very late getting round to it and organisations where friends work had done it ages ago. They are very keen to back BLM and similar causes.
It feels like a sea change similar to the change in attitudes 20 or so years ago towards gays - it's not that it comes up in everyday discussion (and nobody every talks about being woke), just a steady underlying assumption. The concept of white privilege and unconscious bias which puzzles some here is seen similarly to climate change - yes, they know some people don't get it, but they can't imagine why as it seems obvious to them.
Not voting Tory is a given among the youngest who express a political opinion, but they don't feel especially pro- any party, except perhaps the Greens, and they generally vote without enthusiasm for the best-placed non-Tory.
I've always thought a flip side to the pronoun thing is what if people dont want to get into a personal detail like that at work?
Obviously we dont want people to feel like they cannot be open about who they are, or in some bizarre it's ok so long as no one asks and no one tells situation, but voluntary personal questions on things like sexuality or religion people often dont see as an employers business other than avoiding discrimination.
It's not really a personal question. It's just telling people how you wish to be addressed. I assume that if you don't put anything, people will just use pronouns that society would assume, which is fine.
I personally don't put "my pronouns" on anything because they are just what society would expect, so why would I bother? To be honest even if someone addressed me as "she" I don't think I'd be bothered either way.
I agree with that, actually.
Where I'd take umbrage is if I was compelled to put my pronouns on my email signature.
What you've laid out is fine.
The other point (especially on email signatures) is that it's helpful in an environment where you can't necessarily tell a person's gender just from their name, either because it's ambiguous or because you're both part of a large multinational organisation and you aren't familiar with the naming conventions in their country. However, it's usually easy enough to get round the issue somehow, and it's clearly not why proponents of the idea push for it.
Would have been handy for my misapprehensions about Jo Grimond being a woman if every mention of him had had in brackets afterwards "he/his"
My title is Dr and so insurers always ask sex too (maybe they always ask sex* anyway?) but I sometimes get the insurance letters through addressed to "Dr (male) Selebian" and, on one memorable occasion when it was addressed to my wife too "Dr (male) Selebian and Dr (female) Selebian"
*I'll have to check, if they ask for 'gender' I can presumably self-identify as female for a lower premium?
The English language itself provides a neater alternative – doctor and (the archaic) doctress, which would avoid the need for the awkward parentheses. Of course, in most (but not all) roles*, we've adopted the masculine as neuter – which seems sexist to me given that women are in the majority.
*very few people in the UK call landladies landlords, barmaids barmen or waitresses waiters.
Actresses used to be called actresses, but they are now called "actors". Perhaps they got fed up with being connected to a conversation with a bishop?
Not in general usage. In general usage, actress is the dominant term. (I realise you are joking on your latter point).
You can of course now use that quip for any combination, as there are half a dozen female Diocesan Bishops in the CofE, including London.
In India it is common to double title female doctors, for example Dr Mrs Mistry, and sometimes Dr Mr Mistry if in the same practice.
German have 'em beat on that score: Herr Doktor Professor
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
She came to England in 1938, so a love of Germany unlikely, but the Fleet was at anchor in the picture. Czechia not a country known for its naval prowress either!
One possibility (purely speculative without any evidence) is that she had some family connection with the German Navy, that she (maybe) was NOT ethnic Czech but a German who fled to Czechoslovakia (temporarily) after 1933. Plenty of folks did just that.
Yes, I think most likely something like that, though I don't think she was Jewish or a Communist.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese also appreciated Britain's non-belligerent but very helpful assistance during the Russo-Japanese War.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
The whole sad saga of the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Russo-Japanese War is even crazier. Sailed around the world just to get sunk by Admiral Togo at Tshushima.
On great book about it, by Richard Hough, is entitled "The Fleet that Had to Die"
Lord Charles Beresford suggestion that he take half* the British fleet to fight the Russians over the Battle of Dogger Bank sank what was left of his career.
*On the grounds that taking the whole fleet would be unfair.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to build back better defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
I would be happy for any party to express concerns about the government deficit, low interest rates and high house price inflation.
Financial sanity has never been so unfashionable.
I sometimes forget that you and I share at least one thing in common.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Maybe she liked seeing the German navy going blub-blub-blub?
She came to England in 1938, so a love of Germany unlikely, but the Fleet was at anchor in the picture. Czechia not a country known for its naval prowress either!
One possibility (purely speculative without any evidence) is that she had some family connection with the German Navy, that she (maybe) was NOT ethnic Czech but a German who fled to Czechoslovakia (temporarily) after 1933. Plenty of folks did just that.
Yes, I think most likely something like that, though I don't think she was Jewish or a Communist.
Or maybe she just wanted something nice to hang on the wall, and found it cheap somewhere. Like I did with "Victory".
@Leon Long form interview on our fave topic du jour just landed on Joe Rogan’s Spotify’s channel with Christoper Mellon. You need a sub probably to see it.
He has served both Republican and Democrat governments, working directly for the Sec of Defense and the Senate Intelligience Committee.
Seems to be a continuing PR battle playing out before the UAP report is published to Congress between those insiders who want to release more, and those who do not. Mellon of course is in group one. He admits he’s been a “believer” since he was 7 but it would still be odd to risk a hard won reputation by saying the stuff he does.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Actually the fleet was moored at Scapa for a few months before being scuttled. My great grandad commanded a coastal defence converted trawler there throughout WWI so I have an above average interest! Coincidentally one of my dad’s earliest memories was seeing one of the raised battlecruisers being towed to Rosyth for scrapping (they floated it turned turtle I think). Photo of great grandad at the end of the war attached below, he’s the cove to the right of the army officer in the centre of the middle row.
"The Man Who Bought a Navy: The Story of the World's Greatest Salvage Achievement at Scapa Flow" is worth a read.
Talking of Tory literature in the red wall here the literature is interesting. We have two candidates. One of whom is a councillor here. The literature only mentions him and it is all very local about what he has done to help spruce the area up, some of the initiatives he has delivered or helped deliver or are being delivered and potholes. No reference to Boris or the national party at all. I think he has a good chance of getting back in too along with the independent candidate.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to "build back better" defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to build back better defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
I would be happy for any party to express concerns about the government deficit, low interest rates and high house price inflation.
Financial sanity has never been so unfashionable.
I sometimes forget that you and I share at least one thing in common.
Quite so.
While it is quite common for one party to be spendthrift, at the moment all of them are promising to spend like drunken sailors. Every single one of them.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
To be fair, when a few of us quizzed the rationale behind the extent of Sunak's largesse (no giggling in the cheap seats, please) last summer, we were told it was no problem because the Conservatives would just keep on borrowing (one of those films without Sid James or Kenneth Williams, I suspect).
When it was then asked how this debt would be serviced and who would pay for it in the longer term, we were patronisingly told not to worry our little heads about such trivialities during a global pandemic.
The question then becomes which of the two high-spending social democrat parties we should support.
Talking of Tory literature in the red wall here the literature is interesting. We have two candidates. One of whom is a councillor here. The literature only mentions him and it is all very local about what he has done to help spruce the area up, some of the initiatives he has delivered or helped deliver or are being delivered and potholes. No reference to Boris or the national party at all. I think he has a good chance of getting back in too along with the independent candidate.
That's what local election material should be like. 👍
I dislike when local election material tries to fight national battles on things the local Council don't even get involved in.
Speaking of HMS Victory, yours truly just remembered, that I have a large, beautifully framed, VERY nice color print of "The Last Voyage of 'Victory' 1922" by Robert Dunthorne and Son, handing in my hall. Dedicated to Lord Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet, etc, etc.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
When I bought my first flat, off the estate of an elderly female Czech refugee it came with all the contents, including crockery and the pictures on the wall. One was an original photo of the German High Seas Fleet on the day they surrendered at Scapa Flow, and scuppered the next day.
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Actually the fleet was moored at Scapa for a few months before being scuttled. My great grandad commanded a coastal defence converted trawler there throughout WWI so I have an above average interest! Coincidentally one of my dad’s earliest memories was seeing one of the raised battlecruisers being towed to Rosyth for scrapping (they floated it turned turtle I think). Photo of great grandad at the end of the war attached below, he’s the cove to the right of the army officer in the centre of the middle row.
"The Man Who Bought a Navy: The Story of the World's Greatest Salvage Achievement at Scapa Flow" is worth a read.
Thanks, I'll look out for it. I've read some peripheral stuff on the salvage, I think he ended up losing money on it!
Talking of Tory literature in the red wall here the literature is interesting. We have two candidates. One of whom is a councillor here. The literature only mentions him and it is all very local about what he has done to help spruce the area up, some of the initiatives he has delivered or helped deliver or are being delivered and potholes. No reference to Boris or the national party at all. I think he has a good chance of getting back in too along with the independent candidate.
I should add, I'd vote Andy Street or Ben Houchen so hard I'd put a hole in my ballot paper. Because, you know, they actually do stuff - and they're good on regeneration, civic pride and tax.
I think Hampshire County Council is a wet as a fish's wet bits - you're basically voting for a bunch of Clarkites, Soubry's and Amber Rudd's - and Roy Perry's long imperial reign has much to do with that.
HCC could do worse than being turned out wholesale for the LDs for one term. Just so they dry out and get some sense put back in them.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
If I see another Tory leaflet with "our plan for x" in it, I will not be held responsible for my actions.
I think the idea is that the leaflet editor replaces the ‘x’ with a place or policy area Tories are sometimes so dim.
Talking of Tory literature in the red wall here the literature is interesting. We have two candidates. One of whom is a councillor here. The literature only mentions him and it is all very local about what he has done to help spruce the area up, some of the initiatives he has delivered or helped deliver or are being delivered and potholes. No reference to Boris or the national party at all. I think he has a good chance of getting back in too along with the independent candidate.
I should add, I'd vote Andy Street or Ben Houchen so hard I'd put a hole in my ballot paper. Because, you know, they actually do stuff - and they're good on regeneration, civic pride and tax.
I think Hampshire County Council is a wet as a fish's wet bits - you're basically voting for a bunch of Clarkites, Soubry's and Amber Rudd's - and Roy Perry's long imperial reign has much to do with that.
HCC could do worse than being turned out wholesale for the LDs for one term. Just so they dry out and get some sense put back in them.
Same with Durham where the council is rather uninspired and lacking in any real,vision. Content to wallow in its own pity and blame all our woes on the Tories.
The problem,em here is the opposition is extremely fragmented. A mixture of independents, Tories and Lib Dem’s. The independents form three or four different groups and the North East Party hold three seats in Peterlee. I was talking on a group with a Tory party candidate round here and he said that their expectation is that. In spite of,there being no love for labour here, labour will probably win a majority due to a split opposition.
The Greens could get a seat or two too.
I cannot see any result,other than either labour majority or minority labour.
My main issue with voting Tory this Thursday in the locals is that the literature is soaking wet: all climate change, "building back better", "bridging the gap", NHS signalling, and vacuous crap like that.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
So what you'd like is for the Tories to pledge to raise taxes in order to build back better defence infrastructure in preparation for war with France?
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
I would be happy for any party to express concerns about the government deficit, low interest rates and high house price inflation.
Financial sanity has never been so unfashionable.
I sometimes forget that you and I share at least one thing in common.
Quite so.
While it is quite common for one party to be spendthrift, at the moment all of them are promising to spend like drunken sailors. Every single one of them.
Of course they are. Because all the evidence is that spending like drunken sailors makes you popular.
And it is, until shortly after the money runs out.
Comments
The difference is that Reyjavik has a better forecast, with more sunshine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3413829
The amount of history in that one ship....
First ship attacked with a torpedo in anger (it missed), incidentally.
If I can't be pedantic on here where can I?
I have heard it said that it might require legislation.
I think it is the only thing worth seeing in Alabama.
Like all of Vancouver Island. Or - in a spirit of generosity - we'd settle for just the southern part south of the 49th Parallel!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itOWKJ957zA
The Aurora in St Petersburg is another rare surviving pre dreadnought ship.
You're in Chile?
I have Peruvian family - so they will understand and approve.
Tomorrow Roma. Sunday Villa. Tuesday Leicester Thursday Liverpool.
Years ago toured the USS North Carolina at Wilmington NC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55)
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/elections-2021-day-day-guide-161848796.html
Apologies if others have already posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa
would also be interesting
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/10753/lot/74/
Old Paks definitely impressed the Japanese
Good growing weather as we gardeners call it.
What’s the chances we yet again go from too chilly to too hot in the space of a fortnight? Probably some time in late June. Summers are often way too hot down here these days, I find.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/05/least-nazis-kept-lights-uk-blasts-france-threat-cut-jerseys/
So in that regard its a getting bit lazy to repetitively to slag Starmer off now as boring, charisma less, lack of policies, etc - since when have those things been huge liability in politics? Starmer should do okay as offering a safe place for a vote, especially mid term - though probably struggle against Rishi in GE.
People forget how the Tory upper hand recent years was down to Corbyn, and pundits underestimate how the country wants to move on from Boris.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel/videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=whiLIAPzaZk
The point the EU will make is that as long as Scotland follows the proper legal process regarding any referendum it will be welcome to re-join .
This is no different to Catalonia wanting to re-join , if Madrid gave the green light for a referendum which was won then the EU would welcome them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_cruiser_Georgios_Averof
I was impressed by Estonia's Seaplane Harbour Museum which includes EML Lembit, a minelaying submarine built in Barrow.
I blame the fans...
If Labour hold Hartlepool it can be a sort of sea change moment that the Tory message has stopped working in the red wall. Mixing both the movement by polling firms with a vibe I am getting from the media, I think Labour will hold Hartlepool.
That is, the 4' x 6' feet foyer to my humble apartment. Got it at local thrift shop here in Seattle.
Can't see Hartlepool as owt other than comfortable Tory myself.
This is a position I have held since the start.
It's a bloody election campaign FFS!
Slightly odd for an old Czech Lady, I thought. My brother kept it.
Nothing about tax or business or economics or strategic infrastructure or war with France or anything solid like that.
It's boring my mammary glands off and pushing precisely zero buttons for me.
And no doubt wished to give some recompense for the loss suffered by the Hull fishing fleet when attacked by the Russian Fleet (including Aurora) at the Dogger Bank, in mistaken impression it was the Japanese Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident
(If the Greens were to be a bit more like moderate Green parties on the continent, then that might change, of course.)
Interesting thing, my dad - who's never been especially keen on the Tories - is voting Tory tomorrow (not in the PCC election - he's abstaining on that). It's the wallpaper that's done it. He's furious about the media banging on about that story.
Political tectonic plates shifting are a problem for both.
There's an election tomorrow. Lets see what results we get.
Probably need a bit more cash for the NHS as well, for the war casualties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Turner_Joy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Financial sanity has never been so unfashionable.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1389998860492226560
India reports 412,373 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase so far, and a record 3,979 new deaths
Maybe it's been focused grouped and plays well in the Red Wall, I dunno, but so many core Conservatives I know think it's quasi-Blairite garbage.
France has this sort of Government Minister because they don't have the Daily Express. Someone has to do it.
Or the Dogger Bank incident? (Which was insane).
Tsarist Russia was W-T-A-F?-Land in a lot of ways. The Battle of Dogger bank was just another example of the zany things that happened...
Houchen is 50/1 on for tees mayor too.
I vote Tory locally for moderation, fiscal soundness, efficient adminstration, choice, respect of heritage, and pragmatism rather than ideology when it comes to policy. I also expect candidates who are willing to pleasantly yank my chain on this.
Otherwise, why would I bother?
On great book about it, by Richard Hough, is entitled "The Fleet that Had to Die"
To be fair, we all know Boris Johnson can play to the crowd and for some that will be great. Others may feel the office of Prime Minister should be taken more seriously by the incumbent and it's not quite the post of Court Jester (that's more the Foreign Secretary these days).
Yet, and we have to acknowledge it, Boris Johnson does rapport and empathy well and some love him for that - you couldn't really imagine people wanting to have selfies with Gordon Brown or Theresa May but sometimes Prime Ministers have to be that person who isn't the most popular person in the room (Boris has had to in the past year at times and you can see it doesn't sit well with him).
He wants a Britain that's happy, optimistic, positive and enjoying itself and that's an easy message to sell as having a good time works for most people most of the time.
For now, he chimes with the mood of those people who want to forget the past year and just enjoy themselves and have fun without having to think too much about anything else.
He does well, not because he has brilliant policies, but, and this works on a primal level, he makes people feel good and that's a potent weapon for any politician.
The front page of mine lists priorities as: "Flood Prevention", "Pothole repair", "Protecting our local libraries". I'm curious which pothole singular will be repaired. 😂
Inside lists: "Improving roads and pavements", "supporting economic growth and new jobs", "supporting children & young people", "protecting and investing in our libraries", "prioritising support for the most vulnerable" and "protecting our environment".
All the kind of stuff I'd expect in local election material.
Here is a good video on the whole insane voyage from Drachinfel who was mentioned above.
*On the grounds that taking the whole fleet would be unfair.
Quite so.
Long form interview on our fave topic du jour just landed on Joe Rogan’s Spotify’s channel with Christoper Mellon. You need a sub probably to see it.
He has served both Republican and Democrat governments, working directly for the Sec of Defense and the Senate Intelligience Committee.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Mellon
Seems to be a continuing PR battle playing out before the UAP report is published to Congress between those insiders who want to release more, and those who do not. Mellon of course is in group one. He admits he’s been a “believer” since he was 7 but it would still be odd to risk a hard won reputation by saying the stuff he does.
When it was then asked how this debt would be serviced and who would pay for it in the longer term, we were patronisingly told not to worry our little heads about such trivialities during a global pandemic.
The question then becomes which of the two high-spending social democrat parties we should support.
I dislike when local election material tries to fight national battles on things the local Council don't even get involved in.
I think Hampshire County Council is a wet as a fish's wet bits - you're basically voting for a bunch of Clarkites, Soubry's and Amber Rudd's - and Roy Perry's long imperial reign has much to do with that.
HCC could do worse than being turned out wholesale for the LDs for one term. Just so they dry out and get some sense put back in them.
Just depends how salty you really are!
The problem,em here is the opposition is extremely fragmented. A mixture of independents, Tories and Lib Dem’s. The independents form three or four different groups and the North East Party hold three seats in Peterlee. I was talking on a group with a Tory party candidate round here and he said that their expectation is that. In spite of,there being no love for labour here, labour will probably win a majority due to a split opposition.
The Greens could get a seat or two too.
I cannot see any result,other than either labour majority or minority labour.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1390017259444256772?s=19
And it is, until shortly after the money runs out.