Always a joy to see the 'scrap heap' theory of Grammar Schools trotted out by people with no remotely recent experience. The Comps in East Essex by the 2 main Grammars tend to have above average results so quite hard to see much of a secondary modern impact, given they no longer exist and there is no curriculam apartheid blocking off anyone's life chances based on the 11+.
I joined a grammar at 14, my brother joined at 16, we both went to a University we'd have had precious little chance of going to if left to a Comprehensive where collecting lots of Bs would have been considered a success rather than a failure.
Bit arrogant to assume no recent experience isn't it. A bit of pot and kettle if you ask me as you have no idea of recent experience for me while assuming I have no recent experience. I have 2 children one doing a Ph.D at Cambridge the other starting her 3rd year at Liverpool, so I have plenty of recent experience of the current system thank you.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
The asset inflation may have made us all rich on paper, but it's of little practical value. I've just had my home revalued for a re-mortgage and it's apparently worth 140% of what I paid for it 9 years ago.
This means on paper I'm richer than I've ever been. It's not much use to me however, other than bumping me into the "really good" loan to value range for the mortgage. If I sell my house, I'll have to buy another that will probably also have gone up by a similar amount.
The only realistic beneficiaries are whoever inherits my estate when I die.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
Taking these points one by one:
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
At the moment you can only hold a ballot to close grammars not to open new ones, that is unfair for starters.
Oxbridge is the conveyor belt to the top jobs, and still you have far more chance of getting there at a grammar than a comp.
You clearly were a late developer and got into the grammar school anyway for sixth form so have noting to complain about
I have nothing to complain about? What? How selfish can you get? I am complaining about all those pupils whose lives were ruined by that system, not mine. Also did you not read my comment about languages that I missed out on while I wasted my time on woodwork and metalwork which was useless to me?
Re getting into Oxbridge you do understand the maths here don't you if you select at 11 you will off course get a higher percentage into Oxbridge than a Comp that hasn't selected. That doesn't make the Grammar better at all.
They aren't ruined, that is the whole point. High schools in selective languages now do GCSEs, often with above average results, including languages.
Of course it is the end of grammars which has meant that an academically bright pupil without wealthy parents in a poor seaside town or deprived inner city area has near zero chance of getting into Oxbridge or even a Russell Group university at the local comp. However they would have had a much better chance of doing so had they been able to go to a local grammar
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Laschet is actually pretty centrist and ideologically close to Merkel, just uncharismatic and hapless. Plus don't forget Corbyn actually did pretty well on a populist platform in 2017 even if not in 2019.
If the SPD do win most seats and form a government with the Greens and FDP or Linke expect the Union to shift to the right in opposition and dump Laschet and Merkelism
I think an SPD-Green-FDP coalition is really difficult to see given the German liberals and Greens are a long way apart on economic matters. SPD-Green-Linke is a lot more likely. A Jamaica coalition (CDU-Green-FDP) is also unlikely, but CDU-Green more likely.
SPD-Green-Linke of course means that a Union-AfD-FDP coalition becomes possible in future elections too if as is likely the Union moved right in opposition. The FDP have already dealt with the AfD in Berlin, just Merkel and Laschet have refused to touch them.
In 2005 and 2013 the SPD could have formed a government with the Stalinist Linke and the Greens but refused as Linke were too extreme.
Similarly in 2017 Merkel and the Union could have formed a government with the populist right AfD and the FDP but refused as the AfD were too extreme.
If the SPD win most seats and now agree to do a deal with Linke then the era of centrist German politics is over. It would become polarised between leftwing and rightwing blocks.
CDU-Green likely no longer has the numbers
But the 2 options: (let's call them) centre-right+AfD and centre-left+Linke are not really that similar. SPD and Greens are currently in coalition with die Linke in 3 state parliaments (Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia) without centrist politics coming to an end. There have been no states where the AfD formed part of the government. In Thuringia the CDU wouldn't even allow its representatives to vote down the "Stalinist"-led government just to avoid them going through the same lobby as the AfD.
The AfD supported the FDP in Berlin. Many on the right of the CDU and the CSU are open to deals with the AfD once Merkel and Laschet are gone.
Plus if the SPD-Greens and Linke form a governing coalition then the Union will have to do a deal with the AfD or it will almost never get into government again. It would have no choice but to move to the right and deal with the AfD.
The Union and their traditional allies the FDP no longer have the numbers to form centre right governments again on their own
The CDU won't be doing any kind of deal with the AfD any time soon. It would destroy the party.
IF the CDU became the main opposition (it's still more likely they will remain in government) they would probably be well placed to take power in future elections, but not by cosying up with the AfD. They have shown that they are perfectly capable of forming coalitions with the FDP, the SPD and the Greens or combinations of those parties.
Have a look at the governments in the Bundesländer, now and in the last few years.
I don't know what you mean with the AfD supported the FDP in Berlin - maybe you could provide a link.
If the CDU/CSU do not do a deal with the AfD they would effectively be consigned to permanent opposition anyway if a cozy SPD-Green-Linke consensus takes hold so no problem. If a few CDU centrists refuse that would be a small price to pay for the chance to return to power.
The Union can take power with the SPD and/or Greens but only if the latter refuse to share power with the Linke, if they do then that option of further grand coalitions is removed.
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
Amongst my close women friends, we are all of us married to men who earn less than us. The men are all doing interesting, good jobs. I would still say though that the primary care giver was still the woman. And interestingly it was still the assumption made by others.
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
My wife and I both work four days a week. The schools, and before that nurseries, are no more likely to phone one of us than the other, AFAICS. We've both sacrificed promotability for childcare. We both necessarily eschew after work events. These are choices you make as a family. Had I had an opportunity for some hugely well-paid job my wife might have worked rather less, or not at all; had she had a similar opportunity, I would have worked less or not at all. That's not the path either of us chose to pursue, though the extent to which this is choice are half chance and dependent on all sorts of other factors anyway. But I don't agree it's a result of some big conspiracy against women.
And there are not women's tasks or men's tasks, there is just a massive amount of stuff which needs doing. This includes generating income, childcare, education, feeding them and clothing them, house maintenance, taxiing them about, etc, etc. In our house, we both work, but not all the time. We both do childcare, but not all the time. I do most of the food shopping and preparation, the wife does most of the clothes shopping and washing. We both do the housework. I will do jobs which require heavy things to be lifted or high shelves to be reached, my wife will do jobs which require an element of patience with technology or which require good eyesight.
Other families will make different choices.
But I am never going to get to particularly senior levels within my organisation because I simply don't have the time to commit to it - because of the choices we have made as a family. That's not the dice being loaded against women, or parents, or anyone else, just a recognition that there are only so many hours in the day.
The only respect I will agree that there is any element of the dice being loaded against women are that women will need to make some serious sacrifices for the months either side of giving birth. Pregnancy is often hard and breastfeeding is limiting. But that is not in itself career limiting unless you have hordes of children; and is the result of biology, not society.
I do not regret any of the choices I made.
My point is a simple one. There comes a time when women no longer have childcare responsibilities or where they are less. Women need to realise this and plan their working lives so that they do not miss out on opportunities when that time comes. So too do employers and society generally.
My best work and achievements were later in life. They built on what I did and learned in my 20's and 30's but I was really able to flourish and contribute and had a hell of a lot to offer later on. There are and will be plenty like me who could do the same. But if you look around you in many workplaces you will not find that many there and it partly because of assumptions made and partly because of a sort of invisibility which can often descend and partly because the way work and organization are structured women - and this can often apply to men too - can result in a loss of talent or a failure to use what talent that is there.
Far too many workplaces are structured around assumptions which, often unthinkingly, favour men - principally men with a traditional old-fashioned support structure around them. So this makes it hard for women and hard too for men who don't fall into that category.
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
is there such a thing as efficient vote for any parties in Germany? can you get most seats even if you don't get most votes?
It's designed to be very proportional according to the party vote (once you've cleared 5%). That's why the total number of MPs can vary so much.
Well, on the direct seats there is a very, very strong 2 party bias. It is just that not that many Germans bother to vote tactically for the constituency vote, on the basis that the two-vote system means there is no difference to the final overall party distribution.
It is this 2 party bias in the direct seats which has lead to the increase in the overall total number of MPs as there becomes more and more parties in the Bundestag. This is why the 2 largest parties (surprise surprise) passed a law to cap the number of extra MPs that can be allocated t each party. Let's see if this hits the Greens and FDP next month.
I'm not sure if any significant changes apply to this election, but I could be wrong, do you have a link to the cap rule? I know there are moves to try and reduce the size of the parliament. But surely any change that made the system significantly non-proportional would be disallowed by the constitutional court.
After catastrophic few days - both in implementation and messaging - feels like @POTUS is trying to change narrative from this being Saigon 1975, to Dunkirk 1940 #Afghanistan
Telegraph carried a diary style article by an unnamed Para in Kabul over the last week. He seemed to imply most British nationals on the list got scooped up by the armed sorties to the rendezvous points in his first 24 hours.
Of course what we don’t know is how many haven’t managed to make it to Kabul yet. But I think the chance of a cascade of Ken Bigleys is thankfully receding (at goodness know what financial cost under the table).
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
If you can afford it you can choose an elite private school. It's a lot of money so I guess you're getting something valuable for it. Those who go this route must think so anyway. Course you have to be quite wealthy for this to be an option.
If you live in a comprehensive area then the private schools will almost always be better academically, so if you are wealthy and want the best for your kids you send them private. Or else you buy a house in the catchment area of an absolutely outstanding state school.
If you live in a selective area however often the grammar schools get as good results as the private schools if not better, so if they pass the 11 or 13 plus then you can send them to the grammar. Only if they fail would you need to send them private
Quite a carry on. I'm convinced there's a better way.
Boris Johnson didn't say it explicitly in his clip but the whole thing was underpinned on the assumption there won't be an delay to the August 31 Afghan withdrawal.
PM refused to deny his argument for extension had failed. “The number one condition that we’re insisting upon is safe passage beyond the 31st, beyond this initial phase, for those who want to leave Afghanistan,” Johnson said. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1430204112080150528
If you were a social liberal in the 1950s and could choose to live anywhere, London would probably be near the top of the list of places to move to.
Yes, at any one time London should be towards the head of the pack on this. It'd be a worry if it weren't. New York was supposedly where it was at in the 50s though. All before my time of course.
After catastrophic few days - both in implementation and messaging - feels like @POTUS is trying to change narrative from this being Saigon 1975, to Dunkirk 1940 #Afghanistan
Boris Johnson didn't say it explicitly in his clip but the whole thing was underpinned on the assumption there won't be an delay to the August 31 Afghan withdrawal.
Boris Johnson didn't say it explicitly in his clip but the whole thing was underpinned on the assumption there won't be an delay to the August 31 Afghan withdrawal.
PM refused to deny his argument for extension had failed. “The number one condition that we’re insisting upon is safe passage beyond the 31st, beyond this initial phase, for those who want to leave Afghanistan,” Johnson said. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1430204112080150528
What you do not say that the BBC have, is that Biden rejected the UK, Germany and France's request for a delay
As the BBC said on 5 live this morning, labour had tried to get Raab sacked but the public simply were not listening, and blame Biden for the situation and this will just emphasise the public perception that Biden is responsible for any failures
And Sky have just reported from the US, this is a holding position and Biden has instructed his advisors to provide him with various options if he does have to extend
My grandparents came to the UK for a better life (and much encouragement from the UK government who wanted the empire links to continue)
One thing few people like to talk about is the fact the largest volunteer army in history was the British Indian Army, my great grandfather served in that army and according to one of my grandfathers my great grandfather loved it, allowed him to feel equal with the Brits. You cannot beat bonds like that, so my great grandfather told his son to go to the UK.
I think one of the things that is quite the pull factor now as it was then was they could all speak English.
Because English is the lingua franca of the world expect more immigration.
Read a history of Brighton - when WWI casualties started showing up from the Indian Army Brighton Council thought "we'll put them in the Brighton Pavilion - help them feel at home". They were in much grander quarters than their tommy counterparts!
Boris Johnson didn't say it explicitly in his clip but the whole thing was underpinned on the assumption there won't be an delay to the August 31 Afghan withdrawal.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
There are plenty of people who only classify themselves Christian because here it still mostly means Church of England ie images of quaint and historic rural parish churches and vicarages and generally liberal vicars. If to classify themselves as Christian they had to classify themselves as Catholic, or evangelical Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal etc they probably would put agnostic
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
There are plenty of people who only classify themselves Christian because here it still mostly means Church of England ie images of quaint and historic rural parish churches and vicarages. If to classify themselves as Christian they had to classify themselves as Catholic, or evangelical Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal etc they probably would put agnostic
Mind you, it's great fun for Anglicans to troll English Catholics by asking them why their churches are all so modern and ugly.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
There are plenty of people who only classify themselves Christian because here it still mostly means Church of England ie images of quaint and historic rural parish churches and vicarages. If to classify themselves as Christian they had to classify themselves as Catholic, or evangelical Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal etc they probably would put agnostic
Mind you, it's great fun for Anglicans to troll English Catholics by asking them why their churches are all so modern and ugly.
Albeit most of the oldest Medieval Churches were once Catholic too before the Reformation
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
There are plenty of people who only classify themselves Christian because here it still mostly means Church of England ie images of quaint and historic rural parish churches and vicarages. If to classify themselves as Christian they had to classify themselves as Catholic, or evangelical Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal etc they probably would put agnostic
Mind you, it's great fun for Anglicans to troll English Catholics by asking them why their churches are all so modern and ugly.
Albeit most of the oldest Medieval Churches were once Catholic too before the Reformation
Another country in which the centre left is polling well is Norway ahead of the election there on September 13th.
The latest Norstat poll (changes from 2017 election):
Labour: 26.8% (-0.6) Conservative: 18.9% (-6.1) Centre Party: 12.8% (+2.5) Progress Party: 10.5% (-4.7) Socialist Left: 9.5% (+3.5) Greens: 5.3% (+2.1) Red Party: 4.7% (+2.3) Liberal Party: 3.8% (-0.6) Christian Democrats: 3.6% (-0.6) Others: 4.2% (+2.5)
The centre-left Red Bloc of parties has a 17 point lead over the centre-right Blue Bloc at roughly 54-37.
Kantar suggesting a big majority (78%) think Jonas Gahr Store, the Labour leader, will be the next Prime Minister and he is the preferred leader over Prime Minister Solberg by 40-31.
Some fascinating "county" polling within Norway which as we know has a population of about 5.5 million of whom around a million live in and around Oslo.
In 2017, Labour won Oslo by two points polling 28.4% to 26.4% for the Conservatives. Polling taken last week shows Labour down five to 23.4% and the Conservatives down six and a half points to 19.9%. Socialist Left is now a strong third on 16.5% (up 7.2) with the Greens also up five to 11.0%.
The swing from the Blue to the Red Bloc of parties nationally is not far off 10% but that swing is being driven by gains for the far Left parties.
Totally the coolest Stone. Least important thing of course, but the last bulwark against the Stones turning into a hollowed out burlesque act.
A complete star. A jazz man who made Rock and Roll his own. Really sad now.
I quite liked the story in one of the Dominic Sandbrook books about him - he thought his middle class bandmates' drug use and general foppishness slightly ridiculous, and much preferred a modle train set to a massive drugs binge.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
There are plenty of people who only classify themselves Christian because here it still mostly means Church of England ie images of quaint and historic rural parish churches and vicarages. If to classify themselves as Christian they had to classify themselves as Catholic, or evangelical Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal etc they probably would put agnostic
Mind you, it's great fun for Anglicans to troll English Catholics by asking them why their churches are all so modern and ugly.
Albeit most of the oldest Medieval Churches were once Catholic too before the Reformation
That was my point.
However to be fair to them from the Reformation until 1791 Catholic worship was illegal in England and Wales (with the exception of 1555-58 under Mary Tudor and 1685-88 under James IInd). That rather limited their scope for building churches which are pre 19th century
Anyway, got to play a few now. Has to be done. Used to LOVE this band when I was young and still do now I'm old.
Yeah I was utterly obsessed by the Stones when I was a teenager. So gutted to hear about Charlie, always my favourite member of the band. Just such a fucking gent. I was listening to Let it Bleed only this afternoon, probably not a month goes by that I don't listen to that album. Really sad now.
Yes. And I didn't realize he was ill. Charlie was great. Talk about understated blokey elegance.
And although the band have gone a bit 'you don't so much marvel at what they do, more that they still do it' these days, they are the Stones and the Stones are ... the Stones!
🙋♂️ Over half of respondents — 56% — said they supported adding lorry drivers to the UK's Shortage Occupation List, making it easier for employers to recruit staff from abroad, compared to who 11% opposed it
NEW: Acc to MP on @CommonsForeign, Foreign Secretary @DominicRaab will be hauled before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday to answer Qs on his handling of the Afghanistan crisis
Yes. And I didn't realize he was ill. Charlie was great. Talk about understated blokey elegance.
And although the band have gone a bit 'you don't so much marvel at what they do, more that they still do it' these days, they are the Stones and the Stones are ... the Stones!
But now they aren't. He wasn't their Ringo.
Understated blokey elegance:
I love the contrast in presentation between Charlie and the other three in that, together with his look of mild exasperation: "why are they STILL dressing like fops?".
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Hi Richard, just wanted to thank you for the book recommendation - Food and Fire by Marcus Bawdon. It is excellent - hugely inspiring.
I saw your post the other day and hope all goes well managing the end of your contract, and that you find suitable pastures new.
Thanks Anabob.
I was talking to Marcus today as we are both in the same boat when at comes to contracts at the moment. Thankfully the BBQ stuff is really taking off for him at the moment so there might come a time when he doesn't need the consultancy work. Meanwhile I need to find time to write some more and see if I can get myself in a similar position.
Anyway, got to play a few now. Has to be done. Used to LOVE this band when I was young and still do now I'm old.
Yeah I was utterly obsessed by the Stones when I was a teenager. So gutted to hear about Charlie, always my favourite member of the band. Just such a fucking gent. I was listening to Let it Bleed only this afternoon, probably not a month goes by that I don't listen to that album. Really sad now.
That's a great record. When I first saw them in 82, after being a mega fan for years, the first bars of the intro song Under My Thumb (unwoke lyrics or what!) boomed out, Jagger came prancing on in baseball gear, and I started blubbering in front of who I was with.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.
At least UK, Germany and France were in unison and Biden is on the hook for this if it goes wrong
No, the UK is firmly on the hook for having a PM who is unfit for office and is seen by the Americans as an absolute joke. The UK, Germany and France and the non-US NATO members are collectively on the hook for having allowed our defence capability to become completely dependent on the US. It is not just Biden's disgrace, it disgraces us all.
At least UK, Germany and France were in unison and Biden is on the hook for this if it goes wrong
No, the UK is firmly on the hook for having a PM who is unfit for office and is seen by the Americans as an absolute joke. The UK, Germany and France and the non-US NATO members are collectively on the hook for having allowed our defence capability to become completely dependent on the US. It is not just Biden's disgrace, it disgraces us all.
We didn't 'allow' it to happen. It has been that way since WW2.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.
Some of us white boys were listening to that black music even without them!
At least UK, Germany and France were in unison and Biden is on the hook for this if it goes wrong
No, the UK is firmly on the hook for having a PM who is unfit for office and is seen by the Americans as an absolute joke. The UK, Germany and France and the non-US NATO members are collectively on the hook for having allowed our defence capability to become completely dependent on the US. It is not just Biden's disgrace, it disgraces us all.
In the court of public opinion Biden will be the one held responsible as reported by the BBC this morning
Anyway, got to play a few now. Has to be done. Used to LOVE this band when I was young and still do now I'm old.
Yeah I was utterly obsessed by the Stones when I was a teenager. So gutted to hear about Charlie, always my favourite member of the band. Just such a fucking gent. I was listening to Let it Bleed only this afternoon, probably not a month goes by that I don't listen to that album. Really sad now.
That's a great record. When I first saw them in 82, after being a mega fan for years, the first bars of the intro song Under My Thumb (unwoke lyrics or what!) boomed out, Jagger came prancing on in baseball gear, and I started blubbering in front of who I was with.
My wife always loves to recount the story of the first time I took her to see Bruce Springsteen. We were down towards the front at Milton Keynes Bowl and she was surrounded by all these 6 foot blokes. The first strains of harmonica for The River sang out and suddenly everyone around her is in tears. Me included.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
Only Papists believe in that, I think.
Not just Roman Catholics but I believe also the more, erm, incense-y and high ritual-y part of the [edit: one must be accurate] Church of England (which as any fule kno is Catholic as well).
If only more lefties gave a flying fuck about the plight of brown women across the Middle East and Asia when there isn't an opportunity to point score against a Tory government. I'm not accusing you, more of a general comment that it's amazing how women who face the worst kind of oppression from a backwards religion get no airtime from Labour and other assorted lefties until there's a chance to point score. It's almost as if they're worried about offending their core voters.
If the CDU/CSU do not do a deal with the AfD they would effectively be consigned to permanent opposition anyway if a cozy SPD-Green-Linke consensus takes hold so no problem. If a few CDU centrists refuse that would be a small price to pay for the chance to return to power.
The Union can take power with the SPD and/or Greens but only if the latter refuse to share power with the Linke, if they do then that option of further grand coalitions is removed.
Thueringen isn't Berlin, and the national party recoiled in horror from that deal. You're being awfully pessimistic - I'd be thrilled to see an SPD-Green-Linke coalition but I don't think it's very likely, and would be with a tiny majority. Postwar German history shows that coalitions shift around, and the CDU would be back when the centre-left stumbled. Unless, that is, the CDU had got into bed with the far right, in which case they'd lose votes (why vote for an extremist ally when you can vote for the real thing?) and lose coalition partners.
The same reasoning, to be honest, is why the SPD aren't keen to do a national deal with the Linke...
Wow that same picture of the empty sparkling water shelf!
Is it just because I was an enthusiastic leaver that I havent seen any empty shelves, apart from the water aisle in Waitrose, in any of the supermarkets I have visited?
Maybe it really was all about believing in Brexit!!! Remainers don't believe and see food shortages, spooky!
Twas rather nice when we were there this afternoon.
What is surprising is the unspoiled sea front with hotels all alongside the side and no shops / amusement arcades. Slightly more awkward was the lack of bars and cafes until the Tynedale hotel.
At least UK, Germany and France were in unison and Biden is on the hook for this if it goes wrong
No, the UK is firmly on the hook for having a PM who is unfit for office and is seen by the Americans as an absolute joke. The UK, Germany and France and the non-US NATO members are collectively on the hook for having allowed our defence capability to become completely dependent on the US. It is not just Biden's disgrace, it disgraces us all.
In the court of public opinion Biden will be the one held responsible as reported by the BBC this morning
And as reported by our roving correspondent in, or near, Llandudno.
Boris Johnson didn't say it explicitly in his clip but the whole thing was underpinned on the assumption there won't be an delay to the August 31 Afghan withdrawal.
Anyway, got to play a few now. Has to be done. Used to LOVE this band when I was young and still do now I'm old.
Yeah I was utterly obsessed by the Stones when I was a teenager. So gutted to hear about Charlie, always my favourite member of the band. Just such a fucking gent. I was listening to Let it Bleed only this afternoon, probably not a month goes by that I don't listen to that album. Really sad now.
That's a great record. When I first saw them in 82, after being a mega fan for years, the first bars of the intro song Under My Thumb (unwoke lyrics or what!) boomed out, Jagger came prancing on in baseball gear, and I started blubbering in front of who I was with.
I saw them in 1982 as well - same tour, no doubt. Roundhay Park, Leeds. Huge crowd, electric atmosphere. Very anti-Thatcher vibe!
Anyway, got to play a few now. Has to be done. Used to LOVE this band when I was young and still do now I'm old.
Yeah I was utterly obsessed by the Stones when I was a teenager. So gutted to hear about Charlie, always my favourite member of the band. Just such a fucking gent. I was listening to Let it Bleed only this afternoon, probably not a month goes by that I don't listen to that album. Really sad now.
That's a great record. When I first saw them in 82, after being a mega fan for years, the first bars of the intro song Under My Thumb (unwoke lyrics or what!) boomed out, Jagger came prancing on in baseball gear, and I started blubbering in front of who I was with.
My wife always loves to recount the story of the first time I took her to see Bruce Springsteen. We were down towards the front at Milton Keynes Bowl and she was surrounded by all these 6 foot blokes. The first strains of harmonica for The River sang out and suddenly everyone around her is in tears. Me included.
Music is a strange and wonderous thing.
It is yes. Never seen the Boss. Wish I had.
"Well you can tell her there's a hot sun beating on a black top ..."
Thueringen isn't Berlin, and the national party recoiled in horror from that deal. You're being awfully pessimistic - I'd be thrilled to see an SPD-Green-Linke coalition but I don't think it's very likely, and would be with a tiny majority. Postwar German history shows that coalitions shift around, and the CDU would be back when the centre-left stumbled. Unless, that is, the CDU had got into bed with the far right, in which case they'd lose votes (why vote for an extremist ally when you can vote for the real thing?) and lose coalition partners.
The same reasoning, to be honest, is why the SPD aren't keen to do a national deal with the Linke...
I think Lindner holds the key.
IF the SPD outpoll the Union, I suspect the CDU/CSU will go into opposition to lick their wounds and digest what would be comfortably their worst ever result.
Lindner has said he will not join a coalition "led" by the Greens - he has not ruled out joining a Government led by the SPD which might also include the Greens. On the current numbers, an SPD-Green-FDP Coalition would have a clear majority so Lindner has to decide how comfortable he will be sitting round a table with Greens but deferring to Scholz as Chancellor.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
Only Papists believe in that, I think.
Not just Roman Catholics but I believe also the more, erm, incense-y and high ritual-y part of the [edit: one must be accurate] Church of England (which as any fule kno is Catholic as well).
It claims catholicity, but if that claim wasn't disputed Boris wouldn't have had a church wedding earlier this year.
The Counterfeit Stones are good fun if the real thing don't tour anymore - I saw The Rolling Stones play once, at Wembley Arena I think. It was the 40 Licks tour and one of my mates was livid that Keith Richards sang a couple of songs, saying that would have only been alright if it was advertised as "The B-Sides and Out takes Tour"
Ach. There was another great drummer and another absolute gent.
Indeed. His books are worth reading as well.
Charlie is getting plaudits for playing a steady beat for 60 years.
Neil completely reinvented his whole technique half way through his career.
Nah Charlie was a great drummer and brought the jazz sensibility to his rock and roll playing. Much like Ginger. Neil was undoubtedly in a class of his own but it is not an either/or situation. They were both great.
Great drumming is seriously underrated. Just look at John Bonham, another remarkable drummer who turned banging a stick into a true art form.
If only more lefties gave a flying fuck about the plight of brown women across the Middle East and Asia when there isn't an opportunity to point score against a Tory government. I'm not accusing you, more of a general comment that it's amazing how women who face the worst kind of oppression from a backwards religion get no airtime from Labour and other assorted lefties until there's a chance to point score. It's almost as if they're worried about offending their core voters.
I've been calling out the Taliban quite routinely and I am quite ashamed the Corbynites especially are more interested in attacking Blair for going into Afghanistan or worse saying we should give money to the Taliban as payback for going in, in the first place.
I don't comment as much as I noted right at the beginning, this is not my area of knowledge and I don't like to comment too widely on issues I don't have a reasonable understanding of.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Frankly, unless someone can explain whose conception was immaculate, and why, then I don't think you should get to call yourself a Christian.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
Only Papists believe in that, I think.
Not just Roman Catholics but I believe also the more, erm, incense-y and high ritual-y part of the [edit: one must be accurate] Church of England (which as any fule kno is Catholic as well).
It claims catholicity, but if that claim wasn't disputed Boris wouldn't have had a church wedding earlier this year.
Wow that same picture of the empty sparkling water shelf!
Is it just because I was an enthusiastic leaver that I havent seen any empty shelves, apart from the water aisle in Waitrose, in any of the supermarkets I have visited?
Maybe it really was all about believing in Brexit!!! Remainers don't believe and see food shortages, spooky!
I'm an empty-shelf sceptic, like you. Though funnily enough, my personal shopper walks to our local Morrison's three or four times a week. Daily reports since empty-shelfgate started show no problem - until yesterday. Apparently, fresh fruit and veg severely depleted for the first time ever. No grapes, strawberries or spinach at all. However, this Remainer has not attributed this at all to Brexit (yet).
Nah Charlie was a great drummer and brought the jazz sensibility to his rock and roll playing. Much like Ginger. Neil was undoubtedly in a class of his own but it is not an either/or situation. They were both great.
Great drumming is seriously underrated. Just look at John Bonham, another remarkable drummer who turned banging a stick into a true art form.
Ach. There was another great drummer and another absolute gent.
Indeed. His books are worth reading as well.
Charlie is getting plaudits for playing a steady beat for 60 years.
Neil completely reinvented his whole technique half way through his career.
Nah Charlie was a great drummer and brought the jazz sensibility to his rock and roll playing. Much like Ginger. Neil was undoubtedly in a class of his own but it is not an either/or situation. They were both great.
Great drumming is seriously underrated. Just look at John Bonham, another remarkable drummer who turned banging a stick into a true art form.
Comments
This means on paper I'm richer than I've ever been. It's not much use to me however, other than bumping me into the "really good" loan to value range for the mortgage. If I sell my house, I'll have to buy another that will probably also have gone up by a similar amount.
The only realistic beneficiaries are whoever inherits my estate when I die.
Of course it is the end of grammars which has meant that an academically bright pupil without wealthy parents in a poor seaside town or deprived inner city area has near zero chance of getting into Oxbridge or even a Russell Group university at the local comp. However they would have had a much better chance of doing so had they been able to go to a local grammar
The Union can take power with the SPD and/or Greens but only if the latter refuse to share power with the Linke, if they do then that option of further grand coalitions is removed.
The CDU and FDP even combined no longer have anywhere near enough seats to form governments again alone
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/shockwaves-in-berlin-as-far-right-afd-lends-support-to-mainstream.html
The gender pay audit has been the quite the eye opener, fortunately I work somewhere where the gap was fewer than 1% and could be explained.
I heard of some places with double digit gender pay gaps.
My point is a simple one. There comes a time when women no longer have childcare responsibilities or where they are less. Women need to realise this and plan their working lives so that they do not miss out on opportunities when that time comes. So too do employers and society generally.
My best work and achievements were later in life. They built on what I did and learned in my 20's and 30's but I was really able to flourish and contribute and had a hell of a lot to offer later on. There are and will be plenty like me who could do the same. But if you look around you in many workplaces you will not find that many there and it partly because of assumptions made and partly because of a sort of invisibility which can often descend and partly because the way work and organization are structured women - and this can often apply to men too - can result in a loss of talent or a failure to use what talent that is there.
Far too many workplaces are structured around assumptions which, often unthinkingly, favour men - principally men with a traditional old-fashioned support structure around them. So this makes it hard for women and hard too for men who don't fall into that category.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestagswahlrecht#Sitzverteilung_ab_2020
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1430201092990717954
Of course what we don’t know is how many haven’t managed to make it to Kabul yet. But I think the chance of a cascade of Ken Bigleys is thankfully receding (at goodness know what financial cost under the table).
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
So 7 days left.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1430203768289865729
“The number one condition that we’re insisting upon is safe passage beyond the 31st, beyond this initial phase, for those who want to leave Afghanistan,” Johnson said.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1430204112080150528
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1430201092990717954?s=20
As the BBC said on 5 live this morning, labour had tried to get Raab sacked but the public simply were not listening, and blame Biden for the situation and this will just emphasise the public perception that Biden is responsible for any failures
And Sky have just reported from the US, this is a holding position and Biden has instructed his advisors to provide him with various options if he does have to extend
Bear GerFlag of Scotland
@bear_ger
1m
Charlie Watts dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61jfm219ArA
Totally the coolest Stone.
Least important thing of course, but the last bulwark against the Stones turning into a hollowed out burlesque act.
Which means, what, 1 to 2% of Brits are Christians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMA5aSr6kkQ
Dread thought, will BJ feel obliged to comment?
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1430209921820286976?s=20
Another country in which the centre left is polling well is Norway ahead of the election there on September 13th.
The latest Norstat poll (changes from 2017 election):
Labour: 26.8% (-0.6)
Conservative: 18.9% (-6.1)
Centre Party: 12.8% (+2.5)
Progress Party: 10.5% (-4.7)
Socialist Left: 9.5% (+3.5)
Greens: 5.3% (+2.1)
Red Party: 4.7% (+2.3)
Liberal Party: 3.8% (-0.6)
Christian Democrats: 3.6% (-0.6)
Others: 4.2% (+2.5)
The centre-left Red Bloc of parties has a 17 point lead over the centre-right Blue Bloc at roughly 54-37.
Kantar suggesting a big majority (78%) think Jonas Gahr Store, the Labour leader, will be the next Prime Minister and he is the preferred leader over Prime Minister Solberg by 40-31.
Some fascinating "county" polling within Norway which as we know has a population of about 5.5 million of whom around a million live in and around Oslo.
In 2017, Labour won Oslo by two points polling 28.4% to 26.4% for the Conservatives. Polling taken last week shows Labour down five to 23.4% and the Conservatives down six and a half points to 19.9%. Socialist Left is now a strong third on 16.5% (up 7.2) with the Greens also up five to 11.0%.
The swing from the Blue to the Red Bloc of parties nationally is not far off 10% but that swing is being driven by gains for the far Left parties.
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/charlie-watts-rolling-stones-songs/
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
I saw your post the other day and hope all goes well managing the end of your contract, and that you find suitable pastures new.
By pretty much any reasonable metric, it is one of the most irreligious nations on Earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/11/uk-secularism-on-rise-as-more-than-half-say-they-have-no-religion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
And although the band have gone a bit 'you don't so much marvel at what they do, more that they still do it' these days, they are the Stones and the Stones are ... the Stones!
But now they aren't. He wasn't their Ringo.
Llandudno named one of the most beautiful coastal towns in the UK
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/llandudno-named-one-most-beautiful-21385581#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
The Rolling Stones are the band I've seen live the most.
Start Me Up is my anthem.
👋 Labour shortages are already causing empty supermarket and shutting restaurants in some parts of the UK
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/poll-public-supports-relaxing-immigration-rules-lorry-driver-food-shortage
🙋♂️ Over half of respondents — 56% — said they supported adding lorry drivers to the UK's Shortage Occupation List, making it easier for employers to recruit staff from abroad, compared to who 11% opposed it
Read more: https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/poll-public-supports-relaxing-immigration-rules-lorry-driver-food-shortage https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1430217793253920780/photo/1
'I'm sick of developing vaccines, I want to make a difference! I'm going to become a HGV driver'
My latest cartoon for tomorrow's @Telegraph
Subscribe to my weekly newsletter to receive my unseen cartoons: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/premium/matt/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_tw_author-account-matt-cartoon_newsletter-signup-Matt-Cartoon&utm_source=tmgoff&utm_medium=tmgoff_tw&utm_content=author-account-matt-cartoon_newsletter-signup&utm_campaign=tmgoff_tw_author-account-matt-cartoon_newsletter-signup-Matt-Cartoon https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1430216812382273549/photo/1
This very rarely happens during parliamentary recess!
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1430221285452353544
I love the contrast in presentation between Charlie and the other three in that, together with his look of mild exasperation: "why are they STILL dressing like fops?".
I was talking to Marcus today as we are both in the same boat when at comes to contracts at the moment. Thankfully the BBQ stuff is really taking off for him at the moment so there might come a time when he doesn't need the consultancy work. Meanwhile I need to find time to write some more and see if I can get myself in a similar position.
"Temporary"
He said "I might be able to go on playing like Charlie Watts, not like Neil Peart"...
Have you come across this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3qfTk730Cw&ab_channel=JoseDurán
Music is a strange and wonderous thing.
The same reasoning, to be honest, is why the SPD aren't keen to do a national deal with the Linke...
Charlie is getting plaudits for playing a steady beat for 60 years.
Neil completely reinvented his whole technique half way through his career.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/08/24/ballerinas-on-tanks-perform-swan-lake-at-russias-army-games-a74880
Is it just because I was an enthusiastic leaver that I havent seen any empty shelves, apart from the water aisle in Waitrose, in any of the supermarkets I have visited?
Maybe it really was all about believing in Brexit!!! Remainers don't believe and see food shortages, spooky!
What is surprising is the unspoiled sea front with hotels all alongside the side and no shops / amusement arcades. Slightly more awkward was the lack of bars and cafes until the Tynedale hotel.
"Well you can tell her there's a hot sun beating on a black top ..."
🙂
IF the SPD outpoll the Union, I suspect the CDU/CSU will go into opposition to lick their wounds and digest what would be comfortably their worst ever result.
Lindner has said he will not join a coalition "led" by the Greens - he has not ruled out joining a Government led by the SPD which might also include the Greens. On the current numbers, an SPD-Green-FDP Coalition would have a clear majority so Lindner has to decide how comfortable he will be sitting round a table with Greens but deferring to Scholz as Chancellor.
The First Minister has appointed 15 special advisers – known as spads – so far, with two advisers now being paid the top wage bracket.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19534970.record-number-spin-doctors-hired-sturgeon-wage-bill-top-1m/?ref=twtrec
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-refuse-millions-from-westminster-to-upgrade-roads-xmktj38xs?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1629822933-1
Great drumming is seriously underrated. Just look at John Bonham, another remarkable drummer who turned banging a stick into a true art form.
I don't comment as much as I noted right at the beginning, this is not my area of knowledge and I don't like to comment too widely on issues I don't have a reasonable understanding of.
Yes, I suppose so! Nice connection there!
[ducks]