I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
Random fluctations are in your favour, but no obvious conference bounce yet. If covid worsens, and restrictions get imposed will that help you over the line? I think its a pretty strong chance.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
Not their vote total because there's bound to be a lower turnout, but they might increase their percentage. That part of Greater London is not natural Lib/Dem territory though.
How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:
Earlier there was a Twitter thread posted by one of our friends in the north (selectively) citing "current UK death rates" and then launching into a tirade about what Johnson is getting wrong - but Johnson is only directly responsible for England which has had the lowest death rate for a month now.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
Sad occasion for it, but should Breslin the streak of different parties winning the last 4 by elections, i think , which might have continued if the next was Lagan Valley.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I used to work in nearby Dartford - it's a bit posher but not as much as the seat name suggests. Not likely fertile territory for the LDs. unless things have changed mightily in the past decade or so.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
"As close to a certainty as there can be"
So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
I'm sure there are more profitable ways to leverage such near certainties.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I used to work in nearby Dartford - it's a bit posher but not as much as the seat name suggests. Not likely fertile territory for the LDs. unless things have changed mightily in the past decade or so.
I suspect it's a seat the Labour needs to do better in but won't do enough to win so the end result is irrelevant and there won't be any worthwhile betting options.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
"As close to a certainty as there can be"
So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
If you get any takers at 50 - 1 can I share it with you
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now
The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.
Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:
The difference between England and Scotland for the winter wave was huge.
Specifically thr South/London g if you remeber thr north was still in various forms of local restriction going into winter whilst London had reopened the theatres etc.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
I'd expect the Labour vote to hold reasonably ok - more so than the LDs. Just not their kinda place really.
Marcus Rashford has not given £20m to charity. A campaign he fronted raised £20m. Good for him - but not the same as article you posted
Tesco gave £15m, Asda £2.5m, CO-op £1.5m of that £20m.
As Marcus said in the article linked “I put in a bit of money and the number was £50,000” - implies he gave less than £50,000 although not clear exactly what
Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?
It's been slowly adding cases to the parent cohort, including myself, last week. I'm not sure there can be that many more school kids to effect. They all seem to have been exposed to it now. My 12yo has been through half her school class getting Covid plus both her parents and siblings without getting it.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Yes, exactly the same thing struck me. I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.
The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
"As close to a certainty as there can be"
So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
If you get any takers at 50 - 1 can I share it with you
Come on, you said "as close to a certainty as there can be", so you have to be pretty sure. What are you offering?
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
There are times when constituency officials should put their foot down and tell a long standing MP that it's time to retire, three that spring to mind:
Winston Churchill in 1959 Ted Heath in 1997 Dennis Skinner in 2019
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
We shall have to await and see. Doubtless there will be some such. But I can't see it happening. I see the Tory share falling. But not below 45%. Probably not even 50%. And the excess not coalescing. Low turnout too.
The University of Hong Kong has demanded the Pillar of Shame sculpture be removed by Oct 13 at 5 pm. The sculpture, by Danish artist Jens Galschiot, was erected in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, which killed scores of demonstrators in Beijing.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
There are times when constituency officials should put their foot down and tell a long standing MP that it's time to retire, three that spring to mind:
Winston Churchill in 1959 Ted Heath in 1997 Dennis Skinner in 2019
Worth saying that Cheryl Gillan only stayed on in 2019 because her husband had died and she didn't know what else to do with her time, now her retirement plans had disappeared.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
Hmm, Wodehouse used the name Lord Sidcup for his comic version of Oswald Mosley. Could work either way, mind.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
I didn’t know that. Interesting. I recall Thatcher reviving the creation of hereditary peerages being quite controversial at the time.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
UKIP? Reform? They're the alternate form of the modern Conservative party are they not?
I seem to recall Orpington being written off as a prospect all those years ago, but I don't know the area and I'm inclined to believe those do and are are writing the LD's off.
One feature of the Orpington count that I clearly recall was the cameras being let in, and watching the packets of votes pile up in the Liberal boxes.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Farage as PM in waiting? I don't much like your parallel universe.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
In general older titles created by writ of summons and some Scottish titles could be inherited by women but there are exceptions, when Louis Mountbatten was made an Earl in 1947 for his wartime service, he got King George VI to insert a clause allowing his title to be inherited by his daughter Patricia. She became the Countess Mountbatten in her own right and she married a Baron so their son is now the third Earl and also Baron (or Lord) Brabourne which can be used as a courtesy title by his own son.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Farage as PM in waiting? I don't much like your parallel universe.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
I lived in Winchester in the 90s. Very safe over all but there were certain “squaddie pubs” that civilians strayed into at their peril.
Martin saw himself as the MPs' Shop Steward which is why the expenses scandal blew up on his watch - but there weren't reports of him bullying his staff.
Bercow is a pompous insecure bully far too fond of the sound of his own voice, now enjoying thoroughly well deserved obscurity.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
The usual parties of opposition are demonstrating why they have become the usual parties of opposition, rather than government.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
UKIP? Reform? They're the alternate form of the modern Conservative party are they not?
I seem to recall Orpington being written off as a prospect all those years ago, but I don't know the area and I'm inclined to believe those do and are are writing the LD's off.
One feature of the Orpington count that I clearly recall was the cameras being let in, and watching the packets of votes pile up in the Liberal boxes.
Bexley and Sidcup is relatively middle class, but very different from the inner suburban boroughs towards London - Greenwich and Lewisham. Demographically it has the feel of the Estuary - relatively old, white, and it was a leave voting constituency in 2016. It is not as leafy as Orpington but not as urban as Crayford and Dartford.
I've canvassed for the Lib Dems in the furthest reaches of Lewisham not far from the borders of Bexley and it's a thankless task. Only place I've had a leaflet torn up and thrown back at me. I would expect it to be an easy Tory hold with the Lib Dems nowhere and Labour going backwards.
For those who missed it in the morning thread, the jab is free for over 50s and £14.99 for everyone else - if you don't want to do it via your GP I found the Boots online booking and instore service quick and efficient:
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Not anymore though. Very pleasant place nowadays. Just a few miles from my vineyard.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
If you grew up in working class Lancs you(r ancestors) are most unlikely to have been an indigenous inhabitant.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
The usual parties of opposition are demonstrating why they have become the usual parties of opposition, rather than government.
Surely there must be more to government beyond the blustering nothingness that Boris seems to eschew and the empty nothingness of the opposition parties. Maybe not!?
I rather believe in small government, perhaps this one is demonstrating the benefits whilst not having given up on the costs?
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.
Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".
I think that is a general objection to such questionnaires - they give little or no opportunity to express positive support for pluralism.
Gave up on page two. The questions were deep and the answers allowed shallow. To be able to answer them within the limits required a simplistic an unnuanced approach to political realities.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If it really were (inner) London, it might be a different story. But Bexley is full of van or taxi driving leavers
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Has Farage ever demonstrated any skill in actually running anything?
He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).
And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.
There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.
So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
I lived in student digs in Stepney Green for a year in 1992/3, I don't think I ever once heard an authentic Cockney voice, but neither did I ever feel in any danger, despite wanderings late at night. Some memories: *) The smell of curries hanging in the air around the estates to the south of the Mile End Road in later afternoon. *) Regular visits to Silvermans with a friend in the OTC (glad to see they're still going). *) Pub crawls up along the many pubs up ?Globe Road?, most of which only had one or two customers in mid-week, and most of which appear to have gone. *) Being propositioned by women and men during night-time walks along the Regents Canal. *) An old granny I knew who ran a small shop, being done for dealing guns (apparently). "I'll have a copy of the Mirror and a Smith and Wesson, please." *) Our cleaner eulogising the Kray Twins.
I loved it; looking back, I could have got so much more out of it. I wouldn't live there with a kid, but I would if I was single.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
I didn’t know that. Interesting. I recall Thatcher reviving the creation of hereditary peerages being quite controversial at the time.
She created three, Viscount Whitelaw who's title is extinct because he never had a son, Viscount Tonypandy for former speaker George Thomas now extinct because he never married and Earl of Stockton for Harold MacMillan, the second Earl is his grandson after Harold's own son who was also an MP died suddenly three years before him.
In May, August and September the two parties were level on immigration & in March the Tories led by 3 on the economy. In August it was 8.
How are these below the headline shifts or ‘big changes’? @SouthamObserver
‘Below the headline voting figures things are beginning to shift. The Tory Labour gap on the economy is just seven points. On immigration just three. These are big changes.’
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
I would just comment that there is agreement that we face an extraordinary cost of living crisis with worldwide energy prices rocketing, shortages across the planet with container ships held at anchor in many places, indeed 14 were held at anchor of Anglesey last week due to adverse weather conditions for docking in Liverpool
HMG is facing the bleakest outlook I can remember, not least as covid continues and the economic shocks are extreme.
Taxes are rising and it is fair enough to complain about the loss of the £20 UC uplift but that would add £6billion or 1% on income tax year year on year and Starmer has still not said how he would cover the deficit other than muttering 'tory donors'.
I would be very surprised to see the conservatives retain their poll lead but does anyone know how labour would fund their 170 billion of spending and address the present energy and shortages issues
HMG is having to make extraordinarily unpopular decisions, but in truth governments across Europe and elsewhere are facing the same tsunami of a crisis
We must also remember that on top of this, COP26 is going to involve very expensive commitments (Insulate Britain said they want a trillion to insulate UK homes) and sooner or later the costs are going to collide with policy makers and why has nobody had the courage to say we have to transition to carbon neutral in a manner that does not create massive poverty and societal disruption and if that includes in the UK case giving the go ahead to the Shetland oil fields then so be it
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Has Farage ever demonstrated any skill in actually running anything?
He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).
And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.
There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.
So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
Of course Farage will not be PM. I mentioned him just to illustrate the complete vacuum.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Yes, that was my experience - nice architecture but lots of loud, Kent geezers strutting around the streets and bars.
The Polish governments actions and the puppet courts decision will backfire as the vast majority of Poles support EU membership . The EU will not release the recovery funds and could stop budget payments . The Polish government has now gone too far and the courts decision ironically makes it much more easy for the Commission to take action .
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
Has Farage ever demonstrated any skill in actually running anything?
He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).
And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.
There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.
So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
I'd never vote for him but there would be a morbid curiosity in seeing how if would turn out if he ever did become Prime Minister.
He is critical of everyone about everything and is an "expert" in every single subject and is apparently 100% certain and correct in all of his positions... would be interesting to see whether he'd implode (as I suspect he would) if he got power or whether he'd grow into the job.
But like I say I wouldn't want to ever take the risk of actually voting for him.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
I lived in student digs in Stepney Green for a year in 1992/3, I don't think I ever once heard an authentic Cockney voice, but neither did I ever feel in any danger, despite wanderings late at night. Some memories: *) The smell of curries hanging in the air around the estates to the south of the Mile End Road in later afternoon. *) Regular visits to Silvermans with a friend in the OTC (glad to see they're still going). *) Pub crawls up along the many pubs up ?Globe Road?, most of which only had one or two customers in mid-week, and most of which appear to have gone. *) Being propositioned by women and men during night-time walks along the Regents Canal. *) An old granny I knew who ran a small shop, being done for dealing guns (apparently). "I'll have a copy of the Mirror and a Smith and Wesson, please." *) Our cleaner eulogising the Kray Twins.
I loved it; looking back, I could have got so much more out of it. I wouldn't live there with a kid, but I would if I was single.
I lived in Tottenham as a student 1990/91. Not far from Broadwater Farm. Loads of ganja. Obvious drug dealing, but not once did I feel under physical threat. Far more smiling and pleasant greetings than the much more salubrious areas. Got to know, and be known, by my neighbours and local shops really quickly. Didn't get propositioned. But that's probably just me.
Martin saw himself as the MPs' Shop Steward which is why the expenses scandal blew up on his watch - but there weren't reports of him bullying his staff.
Bercow is a pompous insecure bully far too fond of the sound of his own voice, now enjoying thoroughly well deserved obscurity.
Obscurity? Didn't he join the Labour Party?...oh I see...
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
If you grew up in working class Lancs you(r ancestors) are most unlikely to have been an indigenous inhabitant.
My wife's family history suggests that most at least of her ancestors were living in (East, anyway) Lancashire in the middle of the 19th C, and working in and around the weaving trade. Where there are 'immigrants' they were from Yorkshire. It would be different in Merseyside, of course, and I suspect that if I have a really good dig I'll find some Scots, although one of her cousins has done a lot of work in this area and the vast majority of the records point to the North of England.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Yes, that was my experience - nice architecture but lots of loud, Kent geezers strutting around the streets and bars.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.
Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
If you grew up in working class Lancs you(r ancestors) are most unlikely to have been an indigenous inhabitant.
Go on... are you talking about 19th century Irish immigration, or the hurrying of the North under William the Conqueror, or something else?
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
I doubt it's changed much over the past 35 years.
It has changed a lot. The student population is much bigger so the feel is less Kentish than before, and a lot of the inner area has gentrified as have neighbouring towns like Whitstable and Faversham, thanks in part to the high speed railway link to London.
Canterbury now has a feel not dissimilar to Winchester, or Oxford and Cambridge. Surrounded, increasingly, by vineyard land too (Evremond, Chartham, Simpsons, Barnsole, Nyetimber (vineyards, not the HQ), Heppington etc).
And with the vineyards come Lib Dem voters. It's famously a (surprise) Labour constituency now and one of only 2 towns in Kent to vote remain, but it's also one of only a couple of areas where the Lib Dems have reasonable representation in local government. Particularly in the wine lands to the South. Not quite as distinct as the correlation between vignoble and Macron support in the French presidentielle, but give it time.
Economic Left/Right: -5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.
People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.
I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:
'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?
I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?
*not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.
How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
No dogs, blacks or Irish.
Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.
Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.
Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.
The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
Weird rewriting of history.
It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.
Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.
Not that weird a rewriting of history..
Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.
Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.
So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.
7%.
It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.
The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.
That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
“Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir. I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
The latest hereditary peerage was Duke of Sussex for Prince Harry and his son Archie is the heir apparent. The latest non-Royal hereditary peerage was Earl of Stockton in 1984 for Harold MacMillan and his Grandson is the second Earl. Viscount Whitelaw created in 1983 is extinct.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Not anymore though. Very pleasant place nowadays. Just a few miles from my vineyard.
Had a very nice weekend there with the kids a few years ago - visited the cathedral, the Canterbury Tales experience and the very interesting town museum, and rode bikes on the Crab and Winkle way to Whitstable and back. Would highly recommend for a day trip or weekend visit from London or indeed anywhere else.
For those who missed it in the morning thread, the jab is free for over 50s and £14.99 for everyone else - if you don't want to do it via your GP I found the Boots online booking and instore service quick and efficient:
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If it really were (inner) London, it might be a different story. But Bexley is full of van or taxi driving leavers
I spent a day at the magistrate's Court down there a few years back. That probably gave me a bad impression of the place, but it seemed like it was a bit of a hole. Not as bad as Woolwich, obvs.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
I lived in student digs in Stepney Green for a year in 1992/3, I don't think I ever once heard an authentic Cockney voice, but neither did I ever feel in any danger, despite wanderings late at night. Some memories: *) The smell of curries hanging in the air around the estates to the south of the Mile End Road in later afternoon. *) Regular visits to Silvermans with a friend in the OTC (glad to see they're still going). *) Pub crawls up along the many pubs up ?Globe Road?, most of which only had one or two customers in mid-week, and most of which appear to have gone. *) Being propositioned by women and men during night-time walks along the Regents Canal. *) An old granny I knew who ran a small shop, being done for dealing guns (apparently). "I'll have a copy of the Mirror and a Smith and Wesson, please." *) Our cleaner eulogising the Kray Twins.
I loved it; looking back, I could have got so much more out of it. I wouldn't live there with a kid, but I would if I was single.
I lived in Tottenham as a student 1990/91. Not far from Broadwater Farm. Loads of ganja. Obvious drug dealing, but not once did I feel under physical threat. Far more smiling and pleasant greetings than the much more salubrious areas. Got to know, and be known, by my neighbours and local shops really quickly. Didn't get propositioned. But that's probably just me.
I had a gf who lived in Tottenham in late '91. She took me to a cafe somewhere in the area, which was between the territory of two gangs - one apparently a Tottenham gang, another the 'Hale' (as in Tottenham Hale). They'd sit on each side of the cafe, glowering at one another. I've no idea if they were serious gangs or not.
As a recently ex-public schoolboy, it was rather an eye-opener.
That gf virtually was destroying herself on a diet of clubbing and ecstasy. Quite sad really. Our relationship stopped when she spiked me with an E one night - the only time I've ever taken illegal drugs, and that was unknowingly.
Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
I would just comment that there is agreement that we face an extraordinary cost of living crisis with worldwide energy prices rocketing, shortages across the planet with container ships held at anchor in many places, indeed 14 were held at anchor of Anglesey last week due to adverse weather conditions for docking in Liverpool
HMG is facing the bleakest outlook I can remember, not least as covid continues and the economic shocks are extreme.
Taxes are rising and it is fair enough to complain about the loss of the £20 UC uplift but that would add £6billion or 1% on income tax year year on year and Starmer has still not said how he would cover the deficit other than muttering 'tory donors'.
I would be very surprised to see the conservatives retain their poll lead but does anyone know how labour would fund their 170 billion of spending and address the present energy and shortages issues
HMG is having to make extraordinarily unpopular decisions, but in truth governments across Europe and elsewhere are facing the same tsunami of a crisis
We must also remember that on top of this, COP26 is going to involve very expensive commitments (Insulate Britain said they want a trillion to insulate UK homes) and sooner or later the costs are going to collide with policy makers and why has nobody had the courage to say we have to transition to carbon neutral in a manner that does not create massive poverty and societal disruption and if that includes in the UK case giving the go ahead to the Shetland oil fields then so be it
One of the few (unless one is Jeremy Corbyn) benefits of opposition is one is not obliged to offer advice in the form of policy detail to one's opponents. Not yet at any rate.
In a world of crises, our crises at the moment do appear to be "world beating" crises.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice). Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
I doubt it's changed much over the past 35 years.
It has changed a lot. The student population is much bigger so the feel is less Kentish than before, and a lot of the inner area has gentrified as have neighbouring towns like Whitstable and Faversham, thanks in part to the high speed railway link to London.
Canterbury now has a feel not dissimilar to Winchester, or Oxford and Cambridge. Surrounded, increasingly, by vineyard land too (Evremond, Chartham, Simpsons, Barnsole, Nyetimber (vineyards, not the HQ), Heppington etc).
And with the vineyards come Lib Dem voters. It's famously a (surprise) Labour constituency now and one of only 2 towns in Kent to vote remain, but it's also one of only a couple of areas where the Lib Dems have reasonable representation in local government. Particularly in the wine lands to the South. Not quite as distinct as the correlation between vignoble and Macron support in the French presidentielle, but give it time.
That is surprising. For it to have changed over the course of 35 years.
I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.
Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
That would be sub-13.7%. What do you reckon?
Highly unlikely
Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it. London is so much different to 1983.
If it really were (inner) London, it might be a different story. But Bexley is full of van or taxi driving leavers
In 2015 UKIP were just 0.8% off overtaking Labour for second place in Old Bexley and Sidcup, so I would have thought ReformUK have a better chance than the LDs.
Though I would think the Tories will hold it comfortably, it is a strong Leave area and James Brokenshire got a huge 64.5% of the vote there in 2019
Comments
So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election
London is so much different to 1983.
That part of Greater London is not natural Lib/Dem territory though.
Higher taxes
Bigger bills
Soaring rates
Rising prices
Frequent shortages
Specifically thr South/London g if you remeber thr north was still in various forms of local restriction going into winter whilst London had reopened the theatres etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/08/labour-mp-rupa-huq-hits-back-at-abuse-from-supporters-of-polish-far-right-author
Or maybe the Home Office is simply no fan of the Polish far-right?
But sadly I’ve come to expect that of you
Winston Churchill in 1959
Ted Heath in 1997
Dennis Skinner in 2019
Giant
Of
A
Man
But I can't see it happening. I see the Tory share falling. But not below 45%. Probably not even 50%.
And the excess not coalescing. Low turnout too.
Then maybe relocate it to Portland Place
Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1446391303810473992?s=20
Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
They're the alternate form of the modern Conservative party are they not?
I seem to recall Orpington being written off as a prospect all those years ago, but I don't know the area and I'm inclined to believe those do and are are writing the LD's off.
One feature of the Orpington count that I clearly recall was the cameras being let in, and watching the packets of votes pile up in the Liberal boxes.
She became the Countess Mountbatten in her own right and she married a Baron so their son is now the third Earl and also Baron (or Lord) Brabourne which can be used as a courtesy title by his own son.
Pologne : après le «Brexit», le «Polexit» ?
https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/pologne-apres-le-brexit-le-polexit-20211007_ARR3QIHLFVAHRKDWZ4MUBDO52E/?redirected=1
Bercow is a pompous insecure bully far too fond of the sound of his own voice, now enjoying thoroughly well deserved obscurity.
I've canvassed for the Lib Dems in the furthest reaches of Lewisham not far from the borders of Bexley and it's a thankless task. Only place I've had a leaflet torn up and thrown back at me. I would expect it to be an easy Tory hold with the Lib Dems nowhere and Labour going backwards.
65+ yr olds - 88%
50-64 yr olds - 75%
General public - 61%
25-49 yr olds - 46%
18-24 yr olds - 30%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446498493829423136?s=20
For those who missed it in the morning thread, the jab is free for over 50s and £14.99 for everyone else - if you don't want to do it via your GP I found the Boots online booking and instore service quick and efficient:
https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services
I rather believe in small government, perhaps this one is demonstrating the benefits whilst not having given up on the costs?
(I'm overblowing the above slightly)
Garbage in, garbage out.
He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).
And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.
There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.
So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
*) The smell of curries hanging in the air around the estates to the south of the Mile End Road in later afternoon.
*) Regular visits to Silvermans with a friend in the OTC (glad to see they're still going).
*) Pub crawls up along the many pubs up ?Globe Road?, most of which only had one or two customers in mid-week, and most of which appear to have gone.
*) Being propositioned by women and men during night-time walks along the Regents Canal.
*) An old granny I knew who ran a small shop, being done for dealing guns (apparently). "I'll have a copy of the Mirror and a Smith and Wesson, please."
*) Our cleaner eulogising the Kray Twins.
I loved it; looking back, I could have got so much more out of it. I wouldn't live there with a kid, but I would if I was single.
She created three, Viscount Whitelaw who's title is extinct because he never had a son, Viscount Tonypandy for former speaker George Thomas now extinct because he never married and Earl of Stockton for Harold MacMillan, the second Earl is his grandson after Harold's own son who was also an MP died suddenly three years before him.
How are these below the headline shifts or ‘big changes’? @SouthamObserver
‘Below the headline voting figures things are beginning to shift. The Tory Labour gap on the economy is just seven points. On immigration just three. These are big changes.’
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1446437405607792640?s=21
HMG is facing the bleakest outlook I can remember, not least as covid continues and the economic shocks are extreme.
Taxes are rising and it is fair enough to complain about the loss of the £20 UC uplift but that would add £6billion or 1% on income tax year year on year and Starmer has still not said how he would cover the deficit other than muttering 'tory donors'.
I would be very surprised to see the conservatives retain their poll lead but does anyone know how labour would fund their 170 billion of spending and address the present energy and shortages issues
HMG is having to make extraordinarily unpopular decisions, but in truth governments across Europe and elsewhere are facing the same tsunami of a crisis
We must also remember that on top of this, COP26 is going to involve very expensive commitments (Insulate Britain said they want a trillion to insulate UK homes) and sooner or later the costs are going to collide with policy makers and why has nobody had the courage to say we have to transition to carbon neutral in a manner that does not create massive poverty and societal disruption and if that includes in the UK case giving the go ahead to the Shetland oil fields then so be it
Great PM of the future? Alex Chalk.
He is critical of everyone about everything and is an "expert" in every single subject and is apparently 100% certain and correct in all of his positions... would be interesting to see whether he'd implode (as I suspect he would) if he got power or whether he'd grow into the job.
But like I say I wouldn't want to ever take the risk of actually voting for him.
Didn't get propositioned. But that's probably just me.
It would be different in Merseyside, of course, and I suspect that if I have a really good dig I'll find some Scots, although one of her cousins has done a lot of work in this area and the vast majority of the records point to the North of England.
Canterbury now has a feel not dissimilar to Winchester, or Oxford and Cambridge. Surrounded, increasingly, by vineyard land too (Evremond, Chartham, Simpsons, Barnsole, Nyetimber (vineyards, not the HQ), Heppington etc).
And with the vineyards come Lib Dem voters. It's famously a (surprise) Labour constituency now and one of only 2 towns in Kent to vote remain, but it's also one of only a couple of areas where the Lib Dems have reasonable representation in local government. Particularly in the wine lands to the South. Not quite as distinct as the correlation between vignoble and Macron support in the French presidentielle, but give it time.
The latest non-Royal hereditary peerage was Earl of Stockton in 1984 for Harold MacMillan and his Grandson is the second Earl.
Viscount Whitelaw created in 1983 is extinct.
I don't often find anything vaguely interesting in your pro-Government, anti- devolution posts, but fair play on this occasion top marks 10/10.
As a recently ex-public schoolboy, it was rather an eye-opener.
That gf virtually was destroying herself on a diet of clubbing and ecstasy. Quite sad really. Our relationship stopped when she spiked me with an E one night - the only time I've ever taken illegal drugs, and that was unknowingly.
In a world of crises, our crises at the moment do appear to be "world beating" crises.
Suck it up, you won.
Though I would think the Tories will hold it comfortably, it is a strong Leave area and James Brokenshire got a huge 64.5% of the vote there in 2019