Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

YouGov/Times “Blue Wall” poll finds six point CON to LAB swing since GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

123457

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,450
    spudgfsh said:

    pigeon said:

    What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?

    The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.

    Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.

    Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.

    As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.

    According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”

    In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.

    Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.

    They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-chairman-ben-elliot-peddled-access-to-prince-charles-hsw5t5bzr

    Simple.

    All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.

    It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
    I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.

    Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
    Probably a fair point about PR.

    But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.

    When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".

    Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
    Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
    Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
    IDS was on for a major defeat. in the same region as 1997 and 2001. Howard was finally able to rebuild the base from which a credible government could be built. that is the job that Starmer now has, whether it's him that takes that base and goes forward with is an unknowable at this point.
    That was the plotters' line. Under IDS the party was heading for disaster. They did not stop to rethink their analysis after the Conservatives did better than expected at the locals. The plot went ahead and IDS was replaced by the equally ineffective, if not even worse, Michael Howard. The usual way Howard is justified is that he begat David Cameron's leadership, which is true.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    The odds are that the Tories will not perform as well at the next GE as is implied from current polling - never mind the polls from a month or so ago. Normal politics is beginning to return, but we have yet to reach the point of deep Government unpopularity.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,079
    Candy said:

    pigeon said:

    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    They have the benefit of the 'popular policies' without the 'unpopular taxes' I can see exactly why they'd do it that way. The English (mainly) get to pay for it too.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,616
    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,651
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    30-50 miles per days according to wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    If Piers Corbyn is happy to take £10k in cash from two random poshos he has never met, makes you wonder who else he would take money from.....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,811

    If Piers Corbyn is happy to take £10k in cash from two random poshos he has never met, makes you wonder who else he would take money from.....

    Like the Duke of Rothesay? Who is rather closer to the centre of the United Kingdom state, such as it is, than Mr Corbyn.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,648

    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I note you are not critical of the endless stream of threads critical.of the Govt. I wasn't looking for a laudatory thread, just some that looked at things via a pair of glasses at 20 20.
    There are plenty of supporters of the Government on this forum and plenty who point out the positive aspects for the Government.

    Every time there's a strong poll for the Conservatives, this site isn't short of people reporting it,

    Good news on vaccinations and declines in case numbers are highlighted by plenty on here.

    I'm not sure what it is you are whingeing about - are we not allowed to point out possible problems or issues for the Government or do we just to have to say everything is wonderful?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    pigeon said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
    Ireland of course is now governed by the Thatcherite socially liberal Fine Gael and economically centrist, socially conservative Fianna Fail who have alternated power between them for decades.

    The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein ironically have more power in Belfast within the UK than they have ever had in Dublin
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,850
    algarkirk said:

    This account of Deborah Mattinson's unsurprising analysis of Labour's position contains one of the largest collections of 'Did you know the pope is a Catholic' type findings I have ever seen in a short space.

    It kind of ends just where anyone who knows anything at all about Labour's position would begin. Plus one or two egregious misconceptions. Worth a glance.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/31/keir-starmers-aide-warns-labour-has-lost-touch-with-target-voters

    As long as WWC voters are seen as Others by the party, we'll thrash around aimlessly getting diverted onto middle class lefty hobby horses. Food banks, Palestine, bedroom tax, trans rights, etc. Zero interest to the vast majority whose votes we are trying to win back.

    Perhaps letting us sit at the table would be a start. Rather than paying yet another North London hand wringer to perform a sociological field trip to the wilds of Stoke on Trent.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,648
    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,850
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
    Ireland of course is now governed by the Thatcherite socially liberal Fine Gael and economically centrist, socially conservative Fianna Fail who have alternated power between them for decades.

    The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein ironically have more power in Belfast within the UK than they have ever had in Dublin
    "The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein"

    Wow. You are on top form tonight.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I note you are not critical of the endless stream of threads critical.of the Govt. I wasn't looking for a laudatory thread, just some that looked at things via a pair of glasses at 20 20.
    There are plenty of supporters of the Government on this forum and plenty who point out the positive aspects for the Government.

    Every time there's a strong poll for the Conservatives, this site isn't short of people reporting it,

    Good news on vaccinations and declines in case numbers are highlighted by plenty on here.

    I'm not sure what it is you are whingeing about - are we not allowed to point out possible problems or issues for the Government or do we just to have to say everything is wonderful?
    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,961
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    Well, I am no expert on Roman roads. But the Persian couriers of the same period could average 300km/day, crossing the empire (2,699km) in nine days. So 28 days for just over double that distance doesn’t seem impossible

    See here for a brief discussion: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=131

    Couple of caveats - these were usually relays, so not always the same courier, and of course they would have had more favourable weather than in northern Scotland. But there do appear to be reports of individual Roman couriers covering 360km a day (there is an extremely improbable claim that Tiberius once covered 800km in one day) while 80 seems to have been considered a decent average.

    Well, the average appears to give around 60 days, not four weeks, but equally, that’s still a lot less than a year.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Losing 47 seats is only reversing the gains of 2019 effectively whilst not really eating into core Tory territory. The latter can certainly happen.

    If Labour gained 47 seats, they would end up almost exactly where they were in 2010.

    Except, of course, they would be a different 259 seats. Instead of 191 in England, you would expect it to be around 235.
    Indeed so. Even in the wake of the 2019 disaster, Labour remains stronger in England than was true in 1983 and 1987 - though the distribution of its strength is very different.
    To be honest, Wokeness is so strong now that it feels like Labour is in office to me at times. The number of voters they have is such that they make their presence felt in our society politically *outwith* political institutions, by and large through the public sector, third sector and large corporations. It advances regardless.

    The only difference is the Tories try and put the brakes on the more obviously insane parts of it, whilst acquiescing to the rest, whilst Labour would turn it up to 11.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,648


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,400
    I don't know what game the Lions were playing tonight but it wasn't rugby. Every time they had the ball they kicked it away. I don't thing there was a single pass to a winger in the game. Perhaps they just wanted to take it to best of three.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
    Ireland of course is now governed by the Thatcherite socially liberal Fine Gael and economically centrist, socially conservative Fianna Fail who have alternated power between them for decades.

    The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein ironically have more power in Belfast within the UK than they have ever had in Dublin
    "The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein"

    Wow. You are on top form tonight.
    https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1214601057017483264?s=20
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,535

    Sean_F said:

    That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.

    Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
    If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.

    The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
    I think it’s easy to forget the scale of the libdem victory. If the conservatives had won by a similar margin, we’d have said odds of 20-1 on were right.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,711

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I note you are not critical of the endless stream of threads critical.of the Govt. I wasn't looking for a laudatory thread, just some that looked at things via a pair of glasses at 20 20.
    There are plenty of supporters of the Government on this forum and plenty who point out the positive aspects for the Government.

    Every time there's a strong poll for the Conservatives, this site isn't short of people reporting it,

    Good news on vaccinations and declines in case numbers are highlighted by plenty on here.

    I'm not sure what it is you are whingeing about - are we not allowed to point out possible problems or issues for the Government or do we just to have to say everything is wonderful?
    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.
    I'm sure when Johnson and his Government does anything "laudatory" there will be enough fanbois on PB to write a thread about it. So we'll just wait I suppose....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.

    Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
    If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.

    The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
    I think it’s easy to forget the scale of the libdem victory. If the conservatives had won by a similar margin, we’d have said odds of 20-1 on were right.
    Yes. It was quite a seismic result. Every bit as much as Hartlepool was.
    And far fewer saw it coming.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.

    Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
    If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.

    The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
    I think it’s easy to forget the scale of the libdem victory. If the conservatives had won by a similar margin, we’d have said odds of 20-1 on were right.
    It is, but I'd say the true odds of the LDs at the start were 30-35% (not 20/1 against) and they became 70-80% as the data & evidence started to come in during the last few days, and only 95%+ once the count started on the night.

    To say there were 95%+ from the start is just barmy, and means you're just really backing your team to win.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,850
    slade said:

    I don't know what game the Lions were playing tonight but it wasn't rugby. Every time they had the ball they kicked it away. I don't thing there was a single pass to a winger in the game. Perhaps they just wanted to take it to best of three.

    That sounds like normal Rugby Union to me.

    Kick and clap. With the primary role of the wingers being to go and fetch the ball back for the throw in.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    edited July 2021
    A thread about US media coverage....

    https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1421545885331197952?s=19

    Innumerate journalists aren't unique to the UK ....in the US they seem to also be struggling with the idea thad vaccine efficiency not being 100% means you will get a large raw number of cases in vaccinated (but not large by the total vaccinated cohort).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    edited July 2021
    slade said:

    I don't know what game the Lions were playing tonight but it wasn't rugby. Every time they had the ball they kicked it away. I don't thing there was a single pass to a winger in the game. Perhaps they just wanted to take it to best of three.

    South Africa strength is to drag you into such a game, in which their superior forward power wins out. It was just the same for England in the WC.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,711
    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,850
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
    Ireland of course is now governed by the Thatcherite socially liberal Fine Gael and economically centrist, socially conservative Fianna Fail who have alternated power between them for decades.

    The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein ironically have more power in Belfast within the UK than they have ever had in Dublin
    "The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein"

    Wow. You are on top form tonight.
    https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1214601057017483264?s=20
    I guess the SNP's black balaclavas were in the wash that day.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,651

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    I don't suppose you've read them recently....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    Beni Baningime man of the match for Hearts.
    Another Everton Academy product let go for a nominal fee.
    Sighs.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,651

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
    Because that would've required a Thatcherite platform, which would've gone down like a cup of cold sick.

    The SNP's strategy clearly was and is to dominate Scottish politics, absent which it would be powerless to achieve anything, and then use that position to push for secession. The party leadership correctly deduced that the way to do this was expressly not to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour, but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories. This required, amongst other things, liberal attitudes towards public spending and lots of nice sweeties like free prescriptions, social care and tuition fees.

    This does rather leave them with the problem of how to convince voters that an independent Scotland can afford to keep its people in the manner to which they are presently accustomed, but it's a much better problem to have than being an impotent minority party with no real influence over anything.
    Ireland of course is now governed by the Thatcherite socially liberal Fine Gael and economically centrist, socially conservative Fianna Fail who have alternated power between them for decades.

    The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein ironically have more power in Belfast within the UK than they have ever had in Dublin
    "The SNP's sister party, Sinn Fein"

    Wow. You are on top form tonight.
    https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1214601057017483264?s=20
    I guess the SNP's black balaclavas were in the wash that day.
    That's in the past, isn't it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    edited July 2021
    Sunday TELEGRAPH: “Shopping vouchers to boost youth jabs” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/LVhldDeTtU

    Seem a bit too little too late.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,840
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    justin124 said:


    2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.

    Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
    That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
    Wishful thinking.

    Anas is doing even worse than Richard, who did worse than Kezia, who did worse than Iain, who did worse than Jim, who…. all the way back to Donald.

    Spot a pattern?
    Anas did not perform that badly at the Holyrood elections in May. Moreover for Westminster elections I suspect the GB leader is more important anyway.
    Anas losing two MSPs, from a low base, was pretty lousy.

    On your second sentence, you’re plain wrong. The big beasts have to be in Scotland, and seen to be in Scotland. Starmer and his Westminster team are very marginal characters in Scottish politics.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    Well, I am no expert on Roman roads. But the Persian couriers of the same period could average 300km/day, crossing the empire (2,699km) in nine days. So 28 days for just over double that distance doesn’t seem impossible

    See here for a brief discussion: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=131

    Couple of caveats - these were usually relays, so not always the same courier, and of course they would have had more favourable weather than in northern Scotland. But there do appear to be reports of individual Roman couriers covering 360km a day (there is an extremely improbable claim that Tiberius once covered 800km in one day) while 80 seems to have been considered a decent average.

    Well, the average appears to give around 60 days, not four weeks, but equally, that’s still a lot less than a year.
    OK but I'm a reasonably well off private traveller, not an imperial courier. Indeed the closest present day analogy to a courier is an encrypted email, so the equivalent journey time these days is less then 1 second. I still maintain that the equivalent journey for the equivalent of me would be over 6 months. Mind you I don't really know what I am talking about. I am not even sure whether you would do the whole thing overland or take a ship from say Istanbul to Marseille.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,711
    RobD said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    I don't suppose you've read them recently....
    omg no!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    I didn't mention pro Govt I.mentioned Balanced....
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,840
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    spudgfsh said:

    justin124 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.

    The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall

    If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.

    YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
    Here's the list;

    CON TO LAB:
    - Chingford & Woodford Green
    - Chipping Barent
    - Filton & Bradley Stoke
    - Hendon
    - Kensington & Chelsea
    - Milton Keynes N
    - Stroud
    - Truro & Falmouth
    - Wycombe

    CON to LDM:
    - Cheltenham
    - Wimbledon
    - Winchester

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421178611223121922?s=20

    Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.

    More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
    FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.

    I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
    I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.

    who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
    JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
    I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.

    Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
    “The krankies”

    Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/
    Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.

    If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
    Only a fifth of English voters oppose Scottish independence, Telegraph poll reveals

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/28/exclusive-fifth-english-voters-oppose-scottish-independence/
    So on that same link 32% of English voters opposed Scottish independence but only 20% support it, ie a 12% margin for No and even bigger than the 10% margin for No Scotland had in 2014
    Only 32% of English voters opposed to Scottish independence is a tremendous finding! Both for the Scots and for the English. And only a minority of those folk are strongly against, herein the gunboat & tank nutters, like your good self.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,961
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    Well, I am no expert on Roman roads. But the Persian couriers of the same period could average 300km/day, crossing the empire (2,699km) in nine days. So 28 days for just over double that distance doesn’t seem impossible

    See here for a brief discussion: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=131

    Couple of caveats - these were usually relays, so not always the same courier, and of course they would have had more favourable weather than in northern Scotland. But there do appear to be reports of individual Roman couriers covering 360km a day (there is an extremely improbable claim that Tiberius once covered 800km in one day) while 80 seems to have been considered a decent average.

    Well, the average appears to give around 60 days, not four weeks, but equally, that’s still a lot less than a year.
    OK but I'm a reasonably well off private traveller, not an imperial courier. Indeed the closest present day analogy to a courier is an encrypted email, so the equivalent journey time these days is less then 1 second. I still maintain that the equivalent journey for the equivalent of me would be over 6 months. Mind you I don't really know what I am talking about. I am not even sure whether you would do the whole thing overland or take a ship from say Istanbul to Marseille.
    I think normal practice in the Roman Empire was for people, as opposed to cargo, to travel by land as far as possible. Until the 15th century, it would have been both quicker and safer, as long as the roads were good.

    And of course the Roman roads were good. Very good. Even heavy carts were said to be able to do four miles an hour on them. Indeed, in many areas they were the standard roads until the nineteenth century and they’re still the basis of much of our National road network - as I can see very clearly in and around Cannock and Lichfield.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    spudgfsh said:

    justin124 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.

    The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall

    If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.

    YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
    Here's the list;

    CON TO LAB:
    - Chingford & Woodford Green
    - Chipping Barent
    - Filton & Bradley Stoke
    - Hendon
    - Kensington & Chelsea
    - Milton Keynes N
    - Stroud
    - Truro & Falmouth
    - Wycombe

    CON to LDM:
    - Cheltenham
    - Wimbledon
    - Winchester

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421178611223121922?s=20

    Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.

    More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
    FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.

    I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
    I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.

    who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
    JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
    I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.

    Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
    “The krankies”

    Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/
    Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.

    If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
    Only a fifth of English voters oppose Scottish independence, Telegraph poll reveals

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/28/exclusive-fifth-english-voters-oppose-scottish-independence/
    So on that same link 32% of English voters opposed Scottish independence but only 20% support it, ie a 12% margin for No and even bigger than the 10% margin for No Scotland had in 2014
    Only 32% of English voters opposed to Scottish independence is a tremendous finding! Both for the Scots and for the English. And only a minority of those folk are strongly against, herein the gunboat & tank nutters, like your good self.
    Numbers will change of a vote were to happen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    edited July 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    spudgfsh said:

    justin124 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.

    The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall

    If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.

    YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
    Here's the list;

    CON TO LAB:
    - Chingford & Woodford Green
    - Chipping Barent
    - Filton & Bradley Stoke
    - Hendon
    - Kensington & Chelsea
    - Milton Keynes N
    - Stroud
    - Truro & Falmouth
    - Wycombe

    CON to LDM:
    - Cheltenham
    - Wimbledon
    - Winchester

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421178611223121922?s=20

    Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.

    More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
    FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.

    I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
    I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.

    who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
    JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
    I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.

    Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
    “The krankies”

    Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/
    Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.

    If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
    Only a fifth of English voters oppose Scottish independence, Telegraph poll reveals

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/28/exclusive-fifth-english-voters-oppose-scottish-independence/
    So on that same link 32% of English voters opposed Scottish independence but only 20% support it, ie a 12% margin for No and even bigger than the 10% margin for No Scotland had in 2014
    Only 32% of English voters opposed to Scottish independence is a tremendous finding! Both for the Scots and for the English. And only a minority of those folk are strongly against, herein the gunboat & tank nutters, like your good self.
    Only 20% of English voters in favour of Scottish independence is a tremendous result for Unionists. Yougov had an even bigger 46% of English voters opposed to Scottish independence with just 13% in favour.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/09/07/how-do-english-and-welsh-people-feel-about-scotlan

    Plus as we Tories have a majority on a no to indyref2 manifesto in 2019 we will decide anyway
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,711

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    pigeon said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.

    If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse

    Yes and that's the "dance" that works both for her and for the Prime Minister.

    Nicola Sturgeon doesn't really want independence - she may say she does and her unthinking acolytes may believe it but the status quo suits her perfectly.

    She can shout for independence safe in the knowledge people like you and Boris Johnson will refuse. Thay strengthens her as she can turn to her supporters and blame "the English Tories" for not giving a second independence vote.

    In the same way as you enforce and support Nicola Sturgeon, she also enforces and supports the Conservatives. Every time she kicks off about independence and Boris Johnson slaps her down, it plays well to the Conservative camp.

    Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon are in a symbiotic relationship - each needs the other and each is supported and strengthened by the other. The current political status quo suits them both so why would they want it changed?
    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.
    I broadly agree with this take. But I also think many are underestimating the efforts she will make to get a referendum (and to build support for a Yes vote) once the pandemic is over. There's going to be drama imo.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,295

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I note you are not critical of the endless stream of threads critical.of the Govt. I wasn't looking for a laudatory thread, just some that looked at things via a pair of glasses at 20 20.
    There are plenty of supporters of the Government on this forum and plenty who point out the positive aspects for the Government.

    Every time there's a strong poll for the Conservatives, this site isn't short of people reporting it,

    Good news on vaccinations and declines in case numbers are highlighted by plenty on here.

    I'm not sure what it is you are whingeing about - are we not allowed to point out possible problems or issues for the Government or do we just to have to say everything is wonderful?
    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.
    You seem to have missed this - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/07/19/why-are-the-tories-leading-in-the-polls/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066
    edited July 2021

    Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.

    There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
    As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
    I've seen plenty of "rowdiness" at cricket matches

    People drink all day, they get punchy. Not to organised football levels, but of course it happens

    I once nearly got thrown out of Headingley in an Ashes game, but managed to blame some blameless guy right next to me
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,565

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066
    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,736
    Interesting that the LDs are down almost as much as the Tories in the Blue Wall seats.
  • lintolinto Posts: 2
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    Well, I am no expert on Roman roads. But the Persian couriers of the same period could average 300km/day, crossing the empire (2,699km) in nine days. So 28 days for just over double that distance doesn’t seem impossible

    See here for a brief discussion: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=131

    Couple of caveats - these were usually relays, so not always the same courier, and of course they would have had more favourable weather than in northern Scotland. But there do appear to be reports of individual Roman couriers covering 360km a day (there is an extremely improbable claim that Tiberius once covered 800km in one day) while 80 seems to have been considered a decent average.

    Well, the average appears to give around 60 days, not four weeks, but equally, that’s still a lot less than a year.
    OK but I'm a reasonably well off private traveller, not an imperial courier. Indeed the closest present day analogy to a courier is an encrypted email, so the equivalent journey time these days is less then 1 second. I still maintain that the equivalent journey for the equivalent of me would be over 6 months. Mind you I don't really know what I am talking about. I am not even sure whether you would do the whole thing overland or take a ship from say Istanbul to Marseille.
    I think normal practice in the Roman Empire was for people, as opposed to cargo, to travel by land as far as possible. Until the 15th century, it would have been both quicker and safer, as long as the roads were good.

    And of course the Roman roads were good. Very good. Even heavy carts were said to be able to do four miles an hour on them. Indeed, in many areas they were the standard roads until the nineteenth century and they’re still the basis of much of our National road network - as I can see very clearly in and around Cannock and Lichfield.
    Check out https://orbis.stanford.edu/ if you want to loose time exploring travel times and routes in Roman times. A very comprehensive version of Google maps for the empire.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.

    Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
    If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.

    The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
    I think it’s easy to forget the scale of the libdem victory. If the conservatives had won by a similar margin, we’d have said odds of 20-1 on were right.
    Yes. It was quite a seismic result. Every bit as much as Hartlepool was.
    And far fewer saw it coming.
    Yes, the site owner earned his corn on that one. I nibbled at the big price and it was based purely on here. I didn't see that steer anywhere else.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    The @NFL is making players wear colored wrist bands now based on vaccination status. Funny, I thought we all agreed on the evils of segregation back in the 60s. Here we are again- only this time it’s based on personal health choices instead of skin color.

    https://twitter.com/Shermanator_42/status/1421516500674961408?s=19

    Putting aside the idea of wrist bands, "Personal health choices".... that's the new "my truth from lived experience".
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066
    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
    It's been a while since this was discussed today, but I just want to say that your ignorance of MesoAmerican history is on Trumpian levels of self-delusion, and yet, like Trump, it did not stop you wading in with a cringeworthy opinion that made people wince in Winnipeg

    It is actually admirable. Not almost admirable. Actually admirable.

    THIS IS WHAT I FIRMLY THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OF WHICH I KNOW NOTHING

    I have observed the same trait in myself so it is fascinating seeing it, in such a florid form, in someone else. My guess is that you were much loved by your mother, perhaps even a favoured son
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,565
    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    How about a student complaint about the use of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my lectures about sex hormone driven cancers? Pretty much bang on the money for woke ffs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    edited July 2021
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    Yes, most likely Scotland will get devomax like Quebec and that will be it and the SNP will decline thereafter as the BQ/PQ has in Quebecois politics
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Losing 47 seats is only reversing the gains of 2019 effectively whilst not really eating into core Tory territory. The latter can certainly happen.

    If Labour gained 47 seats, they would end up almost exactly where they were in 2010.

    Except, of course, they would be a different 259 seats. Instead of 191 in England, you would expect it to be around 235.
    Indeed so. Even in the wake of the 2019 disaster, Labour remains stronger in England than was true in 1983 and 1987 - though the distribution of its strength is very different.
    To be honest, Wokeness is so strong now that it feels like Labour is in office to me at times. The number of voters they have is such that they make their presence felt in our society politically *outwith* political institutions, by and large through the public sector, third sector and large corporations. It advances regardless.

    The only difference is the Tories try and put the brakes on the more obviously insane parts of it, whilst acquiescing to the rest, whilst Labour would turn it up to 11.
    I don't think THIS Labour would turn it up to 11. Doubt you'd notice much difference really. As you say, it's advancing regardless.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    How about a student complaint about the use of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my lectures about sex hormone driven cancers? Pretty much bang on the money for woke ffs.
    That's an example. There are oodles of them every day.
    Not a definition.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,850
    linto said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
    3,200 miles by road, says google maps. I can't see that a courier could average over 30 miles a day even with a supply of fresh horses all along the route, so that's 100 days, and I can't see that fresh horses every single day is realistic.
    Well, I am no expert on Roman roads. But the Persian couriers of the same period could average 300km/day, crossing the empire (2,699km) in nine days. So 28 days for just over double that distance doesn’t seem impossible

    See here for a brief discussion: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=131

    Couple of caveats - these were usually relays, so not always the same courier, and of course they would have had more favourable weather than in northern Scotland. But there do appear to be reports of individual Roman couriers covering 360km a day (there is an extremely improbable claim that Tiberius once covered 800km in one day) while 80 seems to have been considered a decent average.

    Well, the average appears to give around 60 days, not four weeks, but equally, that’s still a lot less than a year.
    OK but I'm a reasonably well off private traveller, not an imperial courier. Indeed the closest present day analogy to a courier is an encrypted email, so the equivalent journey time these days is less then 1 second. I still maintain that the equivalent journey for the equivalent of me would be over 6 months. Mind you I don't really know what I am talking about. I am not even sure whether you would do the whole thing overland or take a ship from say Istanbul to Marseille.
    I think normal practice in the Roman Empire was for people, as opposed to cargo, to travel by land as far as possible. Until the 15th century, it would have been both quicker and safer, as long as the roads were good.

    And of course the Roman roads were good. Very good. Even heavy carts were said to be able to do four miles an hour on them. Indeed, in many areas they were the standard roads until the nineteenth century and they’re still the basis of much of our National road network - as I can see very clearly in and around Cannock and Lichfield.
    Check out https://orbis.stanford.edu/ if you want to loose time exploring travel times and routes in Roman times. A very comprehensive version of Google maps for the empire.
    Welcome!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,565
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    How about a student complaint about the use of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my lectures about sex hormone driven cancers? Pretty much bang on the money for woke ffs.
    That's an example. There are oodles of them every day.
    Not a definition.
    I think it’s defined by the examples. What are you looking for?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066
    kinabalu said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Losing 47 seats is only reversing the gains of 2019 effectively whilst not really eating into core Tory territory. The latter can certainly happen.

    If Labour gained 47 seats, they would end up almost exactly where they were in 2010.

    Except, of course, they would be a different 259 seats. Instead of 191 in England, you would expect it to be around 235.
    Indeed so. Even in the wake of the 2019 disaster, Labour remains stronger in England than was true in 1983 and 1987 - though the distribution of its strength is very different.
    To be honest, Wokeness is so strong now that it feels like Labour is in office to me at times. The number of voters they have is such that they make their presence felt in our society politically *outwith* political institutions, by and large through the public sector, third sector and large corporations. It advances regardless.

    The only difference is the Tories try and put the brakes on the more obviously insane parts of it, whilst acquiescing to the rest, whilst Labour would turn it up to 11.
    I don't think THIS Labour would turn it up to 11. Doubt you'd notice much difference really. As you say, it's advancing regardless.
    It is advancing the same way the Russians advanced on Germany in 1914-15, but yes, for a while, it will keep advancing

    The end result will be the same, and for oddly similar reasons
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,911
    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I don't totally disagree with him - it'd be interesting to read a piece by HYUFD or another Conservative loyalist for a change. But, as I rather inelegantly hinted, they do actually have to take the trouble to write one. I'm sure Mike would publish a coherent right-wing argument, and IIRC did publish a good piece by Casino Royale.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    edited July 2021

    stodge said:

    Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....

    Not if you can be arsed to write one...
    It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
    I don't totally disagree with him - it'd be interesting to read a piece by HYUFD or another Conservative loyalist for a change. But, as I rather inelegantly hinted, they do actually have to take the trouble to write one. I'm sure Mike would publish a coherent right-wing argument, and IIRC did publish a good piece by Casino Royale.
    I might do if I had the time, otherwise I will let my opinions be known here in the thread.

    However on the whole I think OGH is reasonably balanced, he may be anti Boris but he was anti Corbyn too
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
    It's been a while since this was discussed today, but I just want to say that your ignorance of MesoAmerican history is on Trumpian levels of self-delusion, and yet, like Trump, it did not stop you wading in with a cringeworthy opinion that made people wince in Winnipeg

    It is actually admirable. Not almost admirable. Actually admirable.

    THIS IS WHAT I FIRMLY THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OF WHICH I KNOW NOTHING

    I have observed the same trait in myself so it is fascinating seeing it, in such a florid form, in someone else. My guess is that you were much loved by your mother, perhaps even a favoured son
    On the contrary. I claimed no knowledge of "Meso American" matters. It wasn't necessary for my purposes. All I needed - for my purposes - was logic and verbal reasoning. Both of which are strong suits of mine.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    But I did on this very thread! 🙂
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    I'm not going so far as to predict a Sindy vote in the near term. What I'm predicting is that Sturgeon is going to make a more lively attempt to get one than many seem to think.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,693
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    Starmer to expel Ken Loach from the Labour Party as he continues his purge of Corbynistas
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9847769/DAN-HODGES-no-good-Keir-Starmer-just-kicking-Ken-Loach-Labour.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    edited July 2021

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Yes the problem for Nationalists is their best chance of winning an indyref2 is with Boris as PM and post his relatively hard Brexit, however as long as Boris refuses indyref2 and Sturgeon rules out a wildcat referendum and UDI that is not happening.

    Hence diehard Nats are furious with Sturgeon for squandering the opportunity now that may never come again and some have moved to Alba
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    edited July 2021

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    How about a student complaint about the use of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my lectures about sex hormone driven cancers? Pretty much bang on the money for woke ffs.
    That's an example. There are oodles of them every day.
    Not a definition.
    I think it’s defined by the examples. What are you looking for?
    Because the examples tend to mount up to a collection of mostly younger people challenging the received wisdom and attitudes of an older generation.

    Which has always happened.
    Some of the examples will be shown to be utterly ludicrous. Quite a few will become the new received wisdom.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer to expel Ken Loach from the Labour Party as he continues his purge of Corbynistas
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9847769/DAN-HODGES-no-good-Keir-Starmer-just-kicking-Ken-Loach-Labour.html

    So, boot out Corbyn and Momentum - then we know you are serious
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    But I did on this very thread! 🙂
    Indeed you did. But the actual dictionary definition isn't how it is used as well you know.
    How it is used has no agreed definition.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
    It's been a while since this was discussed today, but I just want to say that your ignorance of MesoAmerican history is on Trumpian levels of self-delusion, and yet, like Trump, it did not stop you wading in with a cringeworthy opinion that made people wince in Winnipeg

    It is actually admirable. Not almost admirable. Actually admirable.

    THIS IS WHAT I FIRMLY THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OF WHICH I KNOW NOTHING

    I have observed the same trait in myself so it is fascinating seeing it, in such a florid form, in someone else. My guess is that you were much loved by your mother, perhaps even a favoured son
    On the contrary. I claimed no knowledge of "Meso American" matters. It wasn't necessary for my purposes. All I needed - for my purposes - was logic and verbal reasoning. Both of which are strong suits of mine.
    But you did. You claimed, if I recall correctly, that Aztec culture surely contributed significantly to human civilisation so its extinction by Cortes was a valid thing to protest, despite the flaws of the same civilisation

    This is rubbish. The Aztecs contributed nothing that was not already known and tested by MesoAmerican cultures. They just took MesoAmerican society's most sinister aspects and amplified them, eg they took human sacrifice and virtually industrialised it.

    The best that can be said for the Aztecs is that they were quite good at building a city based on canals, and likewise they were quite good at semi-aquatic farming.

    But what they were REALLY good at was: sacrifice, cruelty, perversity, murder, conquest, flaying, terrorising, invading, heart extrusion, and torturing children to make them cry to slake the thirst of the Rain God Tlaloc

    Into the dustbin of history they go. Let them rot in eternity. It really is like saying goodbye to the Nazis
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,847
    edited July 2021

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Have the referendum anyway. I'm convinced its all just a competition to see who can be remembered as the founder of a nation.

    If Sturgeon can't win the prize, then why would she worry about queering the pitch for her successor?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,840

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,847
    edited July 2021

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer to expel Ken Loach from the Labour Party as he continues his purge of Corbynistas
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9847769/DAN-HODGES-no-good-Keir-Starmer-just-kicking-Ken-Loach-Labour.html

    He'll hit back with a film about how a centrist Labour Party merely allows the Overton window to be dragged back to the Right. It will star Timothy Spall and be grim but compelling.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,031
    edited July 2021

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    How about a student complaint about the use of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in my lectures about sex hormone driven cancers? Pretty much bang on the money for woke ffs.
    That's an example. There are oodles of them every day.
    Not a definition.
    I think it’s defined by the examples. What are you looking for?
    Socrates argued, in dialogues on knowledge, that you should start with the definition not the examples. Then you can use the definition to determine whether a particular example fits the definition ("woke" in this case).

    If you use examples to create the definition, the definition doesn't define (i.e. discriminate between cases). It merely describes by example. It is a description, not a definition.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    Indeed. Plus even if an indyref2 was delayed until 2028 or 2029 and a Labour government there would still be plenty of Scottish over 60 No voters from 2014 still alive to reject independence again.

    If No won again, perhaps with devomax, that would really be it for a generation, indeed probably forever.

    Even the narrow 51% No vote in Quebec in 1995 in their second independence referendum was enough to ensure they have never had another vote on leaving Canada again
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,535
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.

    Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
    As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
    Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
    There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
    About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
    Are you sure?

    Stanford University has a website devoted to Roman travel (yes, seriously), and it will tell you how long it took to get from one part of the Roman Empire to another:

    https://orbis.stanford.edu/

    It's rather good fun.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    The Tories ARE dying off.
    Like the human race.
    And likewise, they are producing more replacements.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    But I did on this very thread! 🙂
    Indeed you did. But the actual dictionary definition isn't how it is used as well you know.
    How it is used has no agreed definition.
    Yes this is true. And I fear it's too late to rein it in now. It's well on its way to just meaning Things I Hate About Modern Life. Which I guess is ok since we don't have a word for that.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,736
    edited July 2021
    Leon said:

    Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.

    There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
    As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
    I've seen plenty of "rowdiness" at cricket matches

    People drink all day, they get punchy. Not to organised football levels, but of course it happens

    I once nearly got thrown out of Headingley in an Ashes game, but managed to blame some blameless guy right next to me
    I've seen very drunk and rowdy crowds at both Headingley and Edgbaston, but they always seem to remain almost completely good-natured most of the time. The worst thing they usually do is throwing plastic cups of lager up in the air, which then soak unsuspecting spectators standing nearby.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,840

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    How “Tory” is the modern iteration of the party? Not very.

    - English Nationalist, not One Nation
    - Revolutionary, not Conservative
    - High tax/high debt, not Friedman
    - State control, not free market
    - Social engineering, not conservatism
    - Nasty, not paternal
    - Reactive, not confident
    - Populist, not principled
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,194
    edited July 2021
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    The Tories ARE dying off.
    Like the human race.
    And likewise, they are producing more replacements.
    Because once people buy a property and get married, generally by their 40s, they turn from renting single Labour voters to property owning Tories supportive of family and stability.

    Of course the fact people get married and own property later boosted leftwing populism amongst the young, see Corbyn but it was still not enough to convince the middle aged.

    Only Blair in my lifetime has been able to assure the propertied, married middle aged who determine elections he can be trusted with protecting the economy and their assets
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    The comments are the comments, that's not what I was referring to.

    This is OGH's forum - he's under no obligation to write the kind of threads you want.

    If one of the many Conservatives on this thread wish to submit a piece along the lines you want, I'm sure it will be considered and accepted for publication.

    Again, you seem to be inferring there are no pro-Conservative thread headers or pieces - why should there be? This isn't the BBC - there's no obligation to provide balance or impartiality just to keep you happy.
    This is also not the Mail/Telegraph/Express where virtually everyday includes a slanted positive view of Johnson and the Government. I'm sure if the fanbois are suffering from withdrawal symptoms they know where to go.
    Lol. The BBC pro govt.. time for a visit to specsavers.. I am.looking for balanced coverage, not relentless negative threads about the Govt. As you say loons can read the Mail Express or theor the Telegraph. I read the Times as it isuch more balanced.
    good for you. I have to disagree with you about the BBC though. Their political programmes are notoriously anti labour, and very rarely mention any third parties. They often take the side of the government in discussions. Usually parrying criticism of Tory policies/practices with a "what would labour do". That should be saved for closer to an election campaign, it's the Tories that are in power doing the things in question, not Labour (or LIBDems for that matter.) The BBC should be "speaking truth to power" not letting him off because of his boyish smirk.
    As much as the bbc winds me up, I don’t buy that it is pro Tory, or pro labour. What you get is people’s own preferences skewing what they see. A Tory supporter will think the bbc is biased against the government because it does ask hard questions. A labour supporter will object when it thinks labour are being pushed not the government.
    The bbc does not represent the majority of the country. It is far too metropolitan, has not real idea of how the countryside works, as shown by the execrable townyfile each Sunday. It is irredeemably woke and wants to lead the country into a nirvana of wokeness, without asking if that is what the country wants.



    I agreed up to the woke.
    No one can tell me what it means.
    Therefore we can't ask if the country wants it.
    But I did on this very thread! 🙂
    Indeed you did. But the actual dictionary definition isn't how it is used as well you know.
    How it is used has no agreed definition.
    Yes this is true. And I fear it's too late to rein it in now. It's well on its way to just meaning Things I Hate About Modern Life. Which I guess is ok since we don't have a word for that.
    Future Shock.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,736
    edited July 2021
    Only the wealthy can afford to have children these days. And buy places to live. (Bit of an exaggeration, but not much).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    The Tories ARE dying off.
    Like the human race.
    And likewise, they are producing more replacements.
    Because once people buy a property and get married, generally by their 40s, they turn from renting single Labour voters to property owning Tories supportive of family and stability.

    Of course the fact people get married and own property later boosted leftwing populism amongst the young, see Corbyn but it was still not enough to convince the middle aged.

    Only Blair in my lifetime has been able to assure the propertied, married middle aged who determine elections he can be trusted with protecting the economy and their assets
    There is much in that. However. "Supportive of the family".
    Suppose it helps if you have a leader who like families so much he has several and keeps wanting to support more.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,535

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.

    Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
    If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.

    The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
    I think it’s easy to forget the scale of the libdem victory. If the conservatives had won by a similar margin, we’d have said odds of 20-1 on were right.
    It is, but I'd say the true odds of the LDs at the start were 30-35% (not 20/1 against) and they became 70-80% as the data & evidence started to come in during the last few days, and only 95%+ once the count started on the night.

    To say there were 95%+ from the start is just barmy, and means you're just really backing your team to win.
    That’s a fair point: but I would equally point out that (despite OGH ramping their chances), they had still only come in to about 7-1 on Election Day.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,549
    Andy_JS said:

    Only the wealthy can afford to have children these days. And buy places to live. (Bit of an exaggeration, but not much).

    I have no idea how somebody on £150k a year can afford 8 (or 10) kids....
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,840
    Andy_JS said:

    Only the wealthy can afford to have children these days. And buy places to live. (Bit of an exaggeration, but not much).

    Only the wealthy can afford private schools these days. Back in the 70s and 80s lots of hard-working parents could send their children to private schools, even on fairly modest incomes, if they were willing to sacrifice foreign holidays, fancy cars etc. No longer. You’ve got to have a seriously high income to even consider it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,651
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
    It's been a while since this was discussed today, but I just want to say that your ignorance of MesoAmerican history is on Trumpian levels of self-delusion, and yet, like Trump, it did not stop you wading in with a cringeworthy opinion that made people wince in Winnipeg

    It is actually admirable. Not almost admirable. Actually admirable.

    THIS IS WHAT I FIRMLY THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OF WHICH I KNOW NOTHING

    I have observed the same trait in myself so it is fascinating seeing it, in such a florid form, in someone else. My guess is that you were much loved by your mother, perhaps even a favoured son
    On the contrary. I claimed no knowledge of "Meso American" matters. It wasn't necessary for my purposes. All I needed - for my purposes - was logic and verbal reasoning. Both of which are strong suits of mine.
    But you did. You claimed, if I recall correctly, that Aztec culture surely contributed significantly to human civilisation so its extinction by Cortes was a valid thing to protest, despite the flaws of the same civilisation

    This is rubbish. The Aztecs contributed nothing that was not already known and tested by MesoAmerican cultures. They just took MesoAmerican society's most sinister aspects and amplified them, eg they took human sacrifice and virtually industrialised it.

    The best that can be said for the Aztecs is that they were quite good at building a city based on canals, and likewise they were quite good at semi-aquatic farming.

    But what they were REALLY good at was: sacrifice, cruelty, perversity, murder, conquest, flaying, terrorising, invading, heart extrusion, and torturing children to make them cry to slake the thirst of the Rain God Tlaloc

    Into the dustbin of history they go. Let them rot in eternity. It really is like saying goodbye to the Nazis
    No I didn't. I said that that was presumably the view of the person making the statement you objected to. So you must take it up with them. One of you will have the greater knowledge and insight on the matter. Probably them, if they write for a broadsheet newspaper, but it's not for me to say.

    My issue with your post was that you offered up the heinous cruelty of the Aztecs as a reason why it's no big deal to misgender somebody in the here and now. Utterly bizarre linkage. That's what needed to be dealt with and so I dealt with it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    Thinking about it. I know next to nothing about the history of Mesoamerica.
    It is a major gap in my education. Can anyone recommend a good primer for the entire topic?
    Basic but comprehensive?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,832
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    pigeon said:


    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.

    As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.

    Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.

    If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.

    If she knew she would win an independence referendum and if she knew the "divorce" settlement with the rest of the UK wouldn't cause an independent Scotland any problems, yes, but we both know neither is certain.

    There's a lot of risk and very little reward in actually having the vote - the status quo carries little or no risk and plenty of reward.
    I think she just needs to know the Ref is winnable and that if won it can be implemented in a manner that won't be ruinous.
    It's been a while since this was discussed today, but I just want to say that your ignorance of MesoAmerican history is on Trumpian levels of self-delusion, and yet, like Trump, it did not stop you wading in with a cringeworthy opinion that made people wince in Winnipeg

    It is actually admirable. Not almost admirable. Actually admirable.

    THIS IS WHAT I FIRMLY THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OF WHICH I KNOW NOTHING

    I have observed the same trait in myself so it is fascinating seeing it, in such a florid form, in someone else. My guess is that you were much loved by your mother, perhaps even a favoured son
    On the contrary. I claimed no knowledge of "Meso American" matters. It wasn't necessary for my purposes. All I needed - for my purposes - was logic and verbal reasoning. Both of which are strong suits of mine.
    But you did. You claimed, if I recall correctly, that Aztec culture surely contributed significantly to human civilisation so its extinction by Cortes was a valid thing to protest, despite the flaws of the same civilisation

    This is rubbish. The Aztecs contributed nothing that was not already known and tested by MesoAmerican cultures. They just took MesoAmerican society's most sinister aspects and amplified them, eg they took human sacrifice and virtually industrialised it.

    The best that can be said for the Aztecs is that they were quite good at building a city based on canals, and likewise they were quite good at semi-aquatic farming.

    But what they were REALLY good at was: sacrifice, cruelty, perversity, murder, conquest, flaying, terrorising, invading, heart extrusion, and torturing children to make them cry to slake the thirst of the Rain God Tlaloc

    Into the dustbin of history they go. Let them rot in eternity. It really is like saying goodbye to the Nazis
    No I didn't. I said that that was presumably the view of the person making the statement you objected to. So you must take it up with them. One of you will have the greater knowledge and insight on the matter. Probably them, if they write for a broadsheet newspaper, but it's not for me to say.

    My issue with your post was that you offered up the heinous cruelty of the Aztecs as a reason why it's no big deal to misgender somebody in the here and now. Utterly bizarre linkage. That's what needed to be dealt with and so I dealt with it.
    Indeed, and also, most of what we know of the Aztecs was written by the Conquistadores to justify their own barbarities. Like many empires they ruled by terror, but that was not the total of their culture.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 17,663
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    The Tories ARE dying off.
    Like the human race.
    And likewise, they are producing more replacements.
    Because once people buy a property and get married, generally by their 40s, they turn from renting single Labour voters to property owning Tories supportive of family and stability.

    Of course the fact people get married and own property later boosted leftwing populism amongst the young, see Corbyn but it was still not enough to convince the middle aged.

    Only Blair in my lifetime has been able to assure the propertied, married middle aged who determine elections he can be trusted with protecting the economy and their assets
    stability lol
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,832
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Candy said:

    pigeon said:



    Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence.

    If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?

    They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.

    If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.

    If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.

    Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
    The SNP wouldn't have got elected on manifestos promising savage spending cuts.
    There won't be another indyref this decade. It suits none of the main British parties. The Scots will never agitate hard enough

    For the foreseeable future, Scotland is destined to become Quebec, forever poised at the threshold (and getting favours thereby) yet never actually crossing it

    And TBF that is a very sensible solution for Scotland. They will benefit, significantly. Will the English tolerate it? Probably
    The current stalemate suits the actual aims of both the SNP and the Conservatives pretty well. But how about this thought experiment?

    Somehow, the 2024 GE leads to a Starmer minority government dependent on SNP votes. The price of that will presumably be Devomax with a thistle on top followed by a Sindyref in (say) 2028. Sturgeon can't push too hard, because what's the alternative? Let the Tories back in?

    When referendum time rolls around, it doesn't look winnable. After all, it's 50:50 now, and some of the push factors will have gone- no Johnson, no JRM, softening of you-know-what.

    Another no to Sindy really would kill it for a generation. What's an SNP leader to do?
    Demographics is working against the Unionists. The grim reaper is slowly strangling the “know-your-place” contingent, while it becomes increasingly hard to find anyone pro-Union under 35.
    People keep saying that the Tories are dying off. Doesn't seem to work that way...
    The Tories ARE dying off.
    Like the human race.
    And likewise, they are producing more replacements.
    Because once people buy a property and get married, generally by their 40s, they turn from renting single Labour voters to property owning Tories supportive of family and stability.

    Of course the fact people get married and own property later boosted leftwing populism amongst the young, see Corbyn but it was still not enough to convince the middle aged.

    Only Blair in my lifetime has been able to assure the propertied, married middle aged who determine elections he can be trusted with protecting the economy and their assets
    Considering that the age to buy first property, the lowest number of marriages in decades and declining fertility rate of first the ABC1s does not sustain that shift very well. Just because it was the tale in previous decades does not mean it is still true. Particularly if you chuck in student debt and unstable employment.

    Time will tell, I suppose
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,253
    I don't know about anyone else, but my "lived experience" is large numbers of couples in my mid 50's cohort separating after decades of marriage.
    Pandemic revealing not causing imho.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,832
    edited July 2021
    dixiedean said:

    I don't know about anyone else, but my "lived experience" is large numbers of couples in my mid 50's cohort separating after decades of marriage.
    Pandemic revealing not causing imho.

    I too know a few couples who have split up in the last year following a bit too much time in the same space.
This discussion has been closed.