politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May’s Maidenhead could be the next parliamentary b
Comments
-
Looking down that list, Debbie Abrahams at 227. Must be value, shoorly?rottenborough said:0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Seems a sensible proposition. I wonder if Mr. Eagles has started trying to persuade Osborne to stand there yet
0 -
It would certainly be symbolic!Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Seems a sensible proposition. I wonder if Mr. Eagles has started trying to persuade Osborne to stand there yet0 -
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.Stark_Dawning said:
Absolutely. Properly marketed, the bill, however large it is, would be seen as a long-term investment that would secure the countries future for aeons. Yes, the Tory party might have fit and elect Rees-Mogg as leader, who would lose to Corbyn. But would be only temporary mishaps.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.MikeL said:Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
0 -
Who?SandyRentool said:
Looking down that list, Debbie Abrahams at 227. Must be value, shoorly?rottenborough said:0 -
The UK gave away money for a promise of CAP reform. Look how well that went.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.Stark_Dawning said:
Absolutely. Properly marketed, the bill, however large it is, would be seen as a long-term investment that would secure the countries future for aeons. Yes, the Tory party might have fit and elect Rees-Mogg as leader, who would lose to Corbyn. But would be only temporary mishaps.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.MikeL said:Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.0 -
Was he speaking French?rottenborough said:0 -
Who told you that was the deal? Blair? And when did you start trusting his word?RobD said:The UK gave away money for a promise of CAP reform. Look how well that went.
Besides, there has been significant reform of the CAP over the years, as well as liberalisation of agricultural imports to the EU, combined with the banning of agricultural export subsidies.0 -
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.0 -
F1: just seen that qualifying, surprisingly, is at 10pm. Weirdly late. Especially given the race starts at 7pm.
I wonder if one or other would otherwise clash with another US sporting event.0 -
Indeed so - but there was no commitment to removing exchange controls at all.williamglenn said:
We had quite a long transitional period after joining, similar to the one that applied to the eastern European members more recently.justin124 said:But the fact that the UK was permitted to join the EEC in January 1973 despite its exchange control policies - and had given no commitment to remove them - clearly implied that such policies were not inconsistent with membership.
Labour abandoned its anti-EEC policy in the course of the 1983 Parliament.0 -
Sadiq Khan draws up some Brexit red lines that can only be met by staying in the EU - https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayors-six-security-red-lines-brexit0
-
He seems to make rather a habit of this...anybody would think he was a total moron. Oh wait, he is.rottenborough said:twitter.com/labourlewis/status/921370707753361409
'Burn neoliberalism, not people'0 -
I don't think there's any evidence of that. We appear to be getting to talks on trade.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.Stark_Dawning said:
Absolutely. Properly marketed, the bill, however large it is, would be seen as a long-term investment that would secure the countries future for aeons. Yes, the Tory party might have fit and elect Rees-Mogg as leader, who would lose to Corbyn. But would be only temporary mishaps.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.MikeL said:Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.0 -
Plaid would nevertheless still have to vote to bring down a Tory Government - as would the SNP.llef said:Of Plaid's 4 seats, 2 have majorities of only around 100 votes, so it probably not surprising that they do not want an early General election, as Leanne Wood has made clear:
Ms Wood said: “The big question for us is the 2021 Assembly elections.
“We have no idea, no one does, on what’s going to happen in Westminster.
“I hope there isn’t another snap election, we do need some stability now on the Westminster front"
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections-more-important-plaid-137871020 -
O/T
1 in every 44 people in the UK is a cocaine user according to this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/map-cocaine-use-hard-drugs-class-a-world-earth-geography-interactive-80110460 -
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
0 -
"However, if you've been to university and moved in certain circles there is a pretty strong chance that you've encountered the infamous white powder."AndyJS said:O/T
1 in every 44 people in the UK is a cocaine user according to this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/map-cocaine-use-hard-drugs-class-a-world-earth-geography-interactive-8011046
In my experience, it just turns people into total twats.0 -
Has he learned from Gordon Brown's five tests?williamglenn said:Sadiq Khan draws up some Brexit red lines that can only be met by staying in the EU - https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayors-six-security-red-lines-brexit
0 -
I know someone who used to work with Clive Lewis in local radio... I'm sure they'll be enjoying Mr Lewis' discomfort immensely.rottenborough said:
0 -
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?SouthamObserver said:
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.0 -
Mr. JS, I do wonder about 1 in X type stats. The numbers for anti-depressant users or the disabled are very high (I think it's either 1 in 6 or 10 for the former). Likewise the number of men who have apparently availed themselves of prostitutes.
Or maybe I live a wonderful sheltered life wherein people read classical history and are delightful civilised, isolated from the harsh grime of modern reality.0 -
Didnt I read somewhere that 1 in 10 men have their own full-sized trebuchet? Lucky gits....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JS, I do wonder about 1 in X type stats. The numbers for anti-depressant users or the disabled are very high (I think it's either 1 in 6 or 10 for the former). Likewise the number of men who have apparently availed themselves of prostitutes.
Or maybe I live a wonderful sheltered life wherein people read classical history and are delightful civilised, isolated from the harsh grime of modern reality. 0 -
-
No because they've agreed to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".RobD said:
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?SouthamObserver said:
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Once we've agreed a sum we then talk about trade but if the trade deal falls apart we can leave without the sum. We don't transfer them the sum before the trade deals start.0 -
Mr. D, you can get (or could, from Firebox) desktop-sized trebuchets. Looked rather good.
The advantage of a trebuchet-based justice system is that when you're hurtling through the air towards the cold embrace of the North Sea, nobody can hear you advocate ethnic quotas.0 -
But the sum is fixed regardless of what we get at the end?Philip_Thompson said:
No because they've agreed to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".RobD said:
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?SouthamObserver said:
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Once we've agreed a sum we then talk about trade but if the trade deal falls apart we can leave without the sum. We don't transfer them the sum before the trade deals start.0 -
It's definitely the sort of drug you'd need a magic money tree to pay for.FrancisUrquhart said:
"However, if you've been to university and moved in certain circles there is a pretty strong chance that you've encountered the infamous white powder."AndyJS said:O/T
1 in every 44 people in the UK is a cocaine user according to this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/map-cocaine-use-hard-drugs-class-a-world-earth-geography-interactive-8011046
In my experience, it just turns people into total twats.0 -
Ah, the Saudi approach of dealing with the issue... just hide them all away.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
I lost respect for Sadiq Khan after he went from ruling out a second referendum as "I'm a democrat" to calling for a second one. His statements about Uber also show he changes with the wind. It's sad really as I otherwise thought he was a very good representative.williamglenn said:Sadiq Khan draws up some Brexit red lines that can only be met by staying in the EU - https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayors-six-security-red-lines-brexit
0 -
He is the ultimate opportunist politician. He has a record of pandering to the people he needs to get elected then flip flopping on positions.Elliot said:
I lost respect for Sadiq Khan after he went from ruling out a second referendum as "I'm a democrat" to calling for a second one. His statements about Uber also show he changes with the wind. It's sad really as I otherwise thought he was a very good representative.williamglenn said:Sadiq Khan draws up some Brexit red lines that can only be met by staying in the EU - https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayors-six-security-red-lines-brexit
0 -
I imagine once we've agreed to pay it then they'd happily ground the planes here until we pay it all up front. They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.SouthamObserver said:
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.0 -
The EU are about as trustworthy as the Romanian Three Card Monty dealers on various London bridges.CopperSulphate said:
I imagine once we've agreed to pay it then they'd happily ground the planes here until we pay it all up front. They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.SouthamObserver said:
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.CopperSulphate said:
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?SouthamObserver said:
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.0 -
Maastricht has happened since then.justin124 said:
But the fact that the UK was permitted to join the EEC in January 1973 despite its exchange control policies - and had given no commitment to remove them - clearly implied that such policies were not inconsistent with membership.rural_voter said:
I assume because it was politically awkward to abandon them earlier. Thatcher embraced a 'capitalist club' and the Labour left didn't like the EEC in those days. Free movement of labour and capital is in the Treaty of Rome, like 'ever closer union'. Free movement of both these factors of production is, er, part of capitalism.justin124 said:
I don't think Labour was committed to leaving the EEC at the 1987 election.As for the Treaty of Rome banning exchange controls , how come that the UK applied such controls until October 1979?rural_voter said:
The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.justin124 said:
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.NickPalmer said:
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.HHemmelig said:
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
Delays in meeting EU rules seem to be not uncommon. The UK found it awkward to meet the EU Air Quality Directive by the due date of 2010 and has been sued twice by Client Earth, possibly now for a 3rd time. The Commission sued it earlier. So far, the score is 3-0.
Labour abandoned its anti-EEC policy in the course of the 1983 Parliament.
Try telling voters that they can't use their own money to go on holiday - as was the case pre-1979 - but that it's OK because that's what used to happen in the 1970's.
0 -
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.0
-
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.CopperSulphate said:They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
0 -
I thought we got rid of them all in the 1600sMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
0 -
0
-
So the EU demanded it for nothing? Doesn't fill me with confidence about their intentions this timewilliamglenn said:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.CopperSulphate said:They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
0 -
Austerity...What Austerity...
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-416916560 -
I agree in principle, tho perhaps in practice, one or two might be "unavailable to vote" due to being stuck on Bardsey Island or the like...justin124 said:
Plaid would nevertheless still have to vote to bring down a Tory Government - as would the SNP.llef said:Of Plaid's 4 seats, 2 have majorities of only around 100 votes, so it probably not surprising that they do not want an early General election, as Leanne Wood has made clear:
Ms Wood said: “The big question for us is the 2021 Assembly elections.
“We have no idea, no one does, on what’s going to happen in Westminster.
“I hope there isn’t another snap election, we do need some stability now on the Westminster front"
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections-more-important-plaid-137871020 -
Mr. D, well, it's increasingly coming back through a combination of religious zealotry, government authoritarianism and terminally offended snowflakes.0
-
That is indeed the case. Brexit has become an article of faith in the Conservative Party - evidence-based policy making has been replaced by slavish obeisance to the creed.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.Stark_Dawning said:
Absolutely. Properly marketed, the bill, however large it is, would be seen as a long-term investment that would secure the countries future for aeons. Yes, the Tory party might have fit and elect Rees-Mogg as leader, who would lose to Corbyn. But would be only temporary mishaps.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.MikeL said:Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.0 -
O/T
Iceland leading Germany 1-0 after 30 mins in women's world cup qualifier:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.1354139550 -
We've got 18 months to put this in place but I agree that it is not a good image and the government should be getting on with it.Beverley_C said:BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
0 -
Calling that snap election will soon be seen as a bigger blunder than when the Empire of Japan decided to keep the USA of out WWII by bombing the American fleet at Pearl Harbour.DavidL said:
We've got 18 months to put this in place but I agree that it is not a good image and the government should be getting on with it.Beverley_C said:BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
0 -
Well what exactly was he giving up our rebate for? If it wasn't for that then I honestly don't know what he did it for.williamglenn said:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.CopperSulphate said:They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
0 -
A 0% real increase in public spending is indeed austerity,FrancisUrquhart said:Austerity...What Austerity...
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41691656
It's not austerity as Ireland, Spain, or Greece have experienced austerity, but it's still quite tough.0 -
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
0 -
Dr. Foxinsox, just because certain foul creeds take root amongst the foolish and the villainous does not mean they should be allowed to grow.0
-
"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" George W Bush
Something we should all remember.0 -
Good grief! Wise words from Dubya - wonders never cease!rcs1000 said:"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" George W Bush
Something we should all remember.0 -
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.194834.1314071945!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/alg-billboard-miss-me-yet-jpg.jpgBenpointer said:
Good grief! Wise words from Dubya - wonders never cease!rcs1000 said:"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" George W Bush
Something we should all remember.0 -
Puritanism is not a foul creed.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxinsox, just because certain foul creeds take root amongst the foolish and the villainous does not mean they should be allowed to grow.
0 -
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.foxinsoxuk said:
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
0 -
And it is important to remember it in the context of a continually ageing population, which puts constant pressure on government spending.Sean_F said:
A 0% real increase in public spending is indeed austerity,FrancisUrquhart said:Austerity...What Austerity...
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41691656
It's not austerity as Ireland, Spain, or Greece have experienced austerity, but it's still quite tough.0 -
New thread!!0
-
Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
You don't need to go back to 1600s Puritanism for bikinis or a woman's back to be censored. Any time pre-1920 would do - indeed for most of recorded history in this country such things would have been widely censored, or at the very least considered socially unacceptable.0 -
Geneva, Bohemia, the Netherlands and Scotland too, but that just shows that our interplay with cultural trends in Europe are nothing new.Sean_F said:
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.foxinsoxuk said:
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
0 -
Czech elections today and tomorrow:
http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/warsaw-keeps-an-eye-on-neighbouring-czech-elections/0 -
Against the national trend which was an average vote increase of 5.8% by Tory candidates TMay’s vote went down by 1.1% but it still looks totally solid.
Interesting, although since it had had the second highest Tory vote share in 2015, the scope for further gains was likely limited, even if going down is noteworthy.0 -
And in any case all days are holy.Sean_F said:
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.foxinsoxuk said:
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
0
