But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
Totally. Personally I think we are a mix, but I never thought the EU understood the links we have to the non European world. We always seemed to be having to make an either or choice, when the reality is we are a bit of both, though in terms of popular culture it’s a no contest. We are part of the Anglosphere.
There was never any compulsion to make an either or choice.
What is Ireland part of?
Dunno. I’m not Irish. They can feel what they want, good luck to them.
I know how I feel, and how the EU made me feel awkward in retrospect, as a member.
I’d rather be a good neighbour than a surly lodger to quote Mr Salmond.
Corbyn's no longer authentic on Brexit and the public knows it.
He looks completely out of his depth
He has hardly had much to compete with on that score since the election though - most now take that view of May too!
Today's speech in complexity and depth is far removed from anything Corbyn could dream of doing.
I doubt that ! Such speeches are 90% written by civil servants . Corbyn would also have those resources available to him.
TM demonstrated a knowledge far in advance than anything Corbyn could hope to emulate
You obviously like to think that . I am not at all convinced. She is no more of a trained economist or lawyer etc than he is! He is,however, a better communicator.
She kept the very tricky Home Office brief far longer than anyone I can remember for Labour. That is no mean achievement. It also shows up Jeremy Slacke,r who has managed to slide through life not taking responsibility for anything he didn't like....
however she just hid for 5 years and made no decisions whatsoever so hardly encouraging.
Not getting fired from being Home Secretary is still way, way better than her Labour predecessors could manage....
You set a very low bar Mark
Roy Jenkins , James Callaghan, Merlyn Rees, Frank Soskice and Chuter Ede actually did ok in the post of Home Secretary!
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
Totally. Personally I think we are a mix, but I never thought the EU understood the links we have to the non European world. We always seemed to be having to make an either or choice, when the reality is we are a bit of both, though in terms of popular culture it’s a no contest. We are part of the Anglosphere.
There was never any compulsion to make an either or choice.
What is Ireland part of?
Always been much closer to Spain , Italy and other popish enclaves.
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own.
Really?
Shakespeares plays were often set in Italy, Denmark, Greece or Rome. They are often rooted in older European stories, as were Chaucer's. Our Royal family is ethnically German, and our Puritan revolution and Non-Conformist churches in the writings of the Swiss Calvin. There are many further interactions and cultural hybridisations with mainland Europe. Ours is a distinct strand, but is most definitely part of a broader European tapestry. Both ourselves and the continent are culturally richer and better for it.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
The UK is half European, half Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
All European countries are the same. They manage it fine.
Well surprise , surprise! Wake up time for PB political anoraks - support for Remain isn’t necessarily a one-way vote winner. Just possibly this might even have cost Corbyn the next election.
Question for people who feel more at home in the Anglosphere: What do you think makes us different from Australians or Canadians? Perhaps it's our Europeanness.
Quebec in the case of Canada.
Perhaps Quebec should join the EU and we could join NAFTA
Corbyn's no longer authentic on Brexit and the public knows it.
He looks completely out of his depth
He has hardly had much to compete with on that score since the election though - most now take that view of May too!
Today's speech in complexity and depth is far removed from anything Corbyn could dream of doing.
I doubt that ! Such speeches are 90% written by civil servants . Corbyn would also have those resources available to him.
TM demonstrated a knowledge far in advance than anything Corbyn could hope to emulate
You obviously like to think that . I am not at all convinced. She is no more of a trained economist or lawyer etc than he is! He is,however, a better communicator.
She kept the very tricky Home Office brief far longer than anyone I can remember for Labour. That is no mean achievement. It also shows up Jeremy Slacke,r who has managed to slide through life not taking responsibility for anything he didn't like....
however she just hid for 5 years and made no decisions whatsoever so hardly encouraging.
Not getting fired from being Home Secretary is still way, way better than her Labour predecessors could manage....
You set a very low bar Mark
Roy Jenkins , James Callaghan, Merlyn Rees, Frank Soskice and Chuter Ede actually did ok in the post of Home Secretary!
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
All European countries are the same. They manage it fine.
Albania and Switzerland? Or within the EU Denmark and Bulgaria? Yup no difference there, none at all, peas in a pod.
Corbyn's no longer authentic on Brexit and the public knows it.
He looks completely out of his depth
He has hardly had much to compete with on that score since the election though - most now take that view of May too!
Today's speech in complexity and depth is far removed from anything Corbyn could dream of doing.
I doubt that ! Such speeches are 90% written by civil servants . Corbyn would also have those resources available to him.
TM demonstrated a knowledge far in advance than anything Corbyn could hope to emulate
You obviously like to think that . I am not at all convinced. She is no more of a trained economist or lawyer etc than he is! He is,however, a better communicator.
She kept the very tricky Home Office brief far longer than anyone I can remember for Labour. That is no mean achievement. It also shows up Jeremy Slacke,r who has managed to slide through life not taking responsibility for anything he didn't like....
however she just hid for 5 years and made no decisions whatsoever so hardly encouraging.
Not getting fired from being Home Secretary is still way, way better than her Labour predecessors could manage....
You set a very low bar Mark
Roy Jenkins , James Callaghan, Merlyn Rees, Frank Soskice and Chuter Ede actually did ok in the post of Home Secretary!
yes but he was talking about the recent ones who were indeed very dire.
Who knows? The point is we’ll have more choice and opportunity (and the motive?). But I suspect as the rest of the world becomes ever more dominant in world affairs and distance continues to shrink (not much in the way of shipping costs for say a TV format service export), we will gradually diversify more away from Europe. The English language alone will nudge us there quite a bit.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
The UK is half European, half Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)
You could say the same of Potugal and the Lusosphere, France and the Francosphere, Ireland and its diaspora, Spain and Latin America, Greece and its diaspora, the Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe.
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own.
Really?
Shakespeares plays were often set in Italy, Denmark, Greece or Rome. They are often rooted in older European stories, as were Chaucer's. Our Royal family is ethnically German, and our Puritan revolution and Non-Conformist churches in the writings of the Swiss Calvin. There are many further interactions and cultural hybridisations with mainland Europe. Ours is a distinct strand, but is most definitely part of a broader European tapestry. Both ourselves and the continent are culturally richer and better for it.
We have links with them, of course we do, but we have links with lots of places. Shakespeare isn't a brilliant example: if someone who can write a whole play set in Venice with not a single nod to the whole canal thing, we can take it it's just a name to him. Our religious setup owes a lot more to being anti-European than being pro. And so on.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 - and the 29th closest to the national swing in 2017
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but younsist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
All European countries are the same. They manage it fine.
Albania and Switzerland? Or within the EU Denmark and Bulgaria? Yup no difference there, none at all, peas in a pod.
The idea that the UK is unique in balancing European and Global interests is absurd. The idea that France ir Germany have been inhibited in their global ambitions by the EU doesn't match the facts.
Who knows? The point is we’ll have more choice and opportunity (and the motive?). But I suspect as the rest of the world becomes ever more dominant in world affairs and distance continues to shrink (not much in the way of shipping costs for say a TV format service export), we will gradually diversify more away from Europe. The English language alone will nudge us there quite a bit.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
Though she has a German-Greek husband, and cousins all over the royal houses of Europe, albeit some deposed.
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
That some people see that as the point does not mean for those who do see that they can be european and british in a cultural sense that that will no longer be the case. The loss of the specific aspects of the EU can be lamented as those will indeed be gone, but you will not cease to be european culturally just because others insist we are not. After all, plenty of people did not feel european even while we are within the EU, and that didn't render your view false.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
The UK is half European, half Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)
You could say the same of Potugal and the Lusosphere, Spain and the Francosphere, Ireland and its diaspora, Spain and Latin America, Greece and its diaspora, the Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe.
Albania and Switzerland? Or within the EU Denmark and Bulgaria? Yup no difference there, none at all, peas in a pod.
The idea that the UK is unique in balancing European and Global interests is absurd. The idea that France ir Germany have been inhibited in their global ambitions by the EU doesn't match the facts.
The French hard-left Eurosceptic Jean-Luc Mélenchon says that France is not European or Western: it is universal, because it is present on 5 continents. As nuts as our Brexiteers.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
Who knows? The point is we’ll have more choice and opportunity (and the motive?). But I suspect as the rest of the world becomes ever more dominant in world affairs and distance continues to shrink (not much in the way of shipping costs for say a TV format service export), we will gradually diversify more away from Europe. The English language alone will nudge us there quite a bit.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
Though she has a German-Greek husband, and cousins all over the royal houses of Europe, albeit some deposed.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
We share a monarch with Yorkshire despite massive cultural differences.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Albania and Switzerland? Or within the EU Denmark and Bulgaria? Yup no difference there, none at all, peas in a pod.
The idea that the UK is unique in balancing European and Global interests is absurd. The idea that France ir Germany have been inhibited in their global ambitions by the EU doesn't match the facts.
The French hard-left Eurosceptic Jean-Luc Mélenchon says that France is not European or Western: it is universal, because it is present on 5 continents. As nuts as our Brexiteers.
Having been to Noumea in New Caledonia, he is not wrong. It is very French.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Mid Derbyshire (and its predecessor Amber Valley) is more representative than both yes, so I changed it
Question for people who feel more at home in the Anglosphere: What do you think makes us different from Australians or Canadians? Perhaps it's our Europeanness.
I don't feel very different from either Australians or Canadians.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Lincoln is number 30 in the list which means it's also a pretty good indicator of swing.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
Perhaps but a bellwether seat is surely one where you can say as goes 'x' so goes the nation alongside reflecting national swing?
You could say the same of Potugal and the Lusosphere, France and the Francosphere, Ireland and its diaspora, Spain and Latin America, Greece and its diaspora, the Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe.
British exceptionalism is a myth.
National identities are all mere constructs, in the end, they are as real as peoples' perceptions. If sufficient people believe Britain does not culturally fit with in Europe, or that said fit does not require absolutely engagement in a political union, it is not a myth to say it therefore exists.
Personally I have no issue accepting that parts of our culture are closer to mainland europeans than the anglosphere, and vice versa. Surely one of the points of the EU, except for fanatics, was that while we share values with one another it was a melting pot of myriad peoples and cultures which retain distinct identities. Indeed, that is a gripe some have, that they believe we did not need to leave to emphasise our distinctness. That may well be true, but nor does it make our believing in a distinctness false, since within or without we are supposed to be distinct. Other nations, when it suits them, will always point to their uniqueness on some point. In that regard we are all both alike and exceptional at the same time really.
But your attempt to try to get us to take sides is pathetic. I and my family love the Italians, have had many holidays there, and I like all Europeans without exemption
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to make the case that we are Europeans, and our closeness with Australians etc, is not in conflict with that.
I actually agree, and its a reason I don't see why culturally it is so devastating to leave the EU, since we will still be europeans too.
Because too many people see asserting our non-Europeanness as the point of Brexit. To me this is what makes being outside the EU different for us than it is for, say, Switzerland. No Swiss person would say, as we've seen here, "I am not a European."
.
Quite. I don’t need the EU to appreciate the Loire Chateaux, Mozart, or the book of Kells.
We aren't culturally European anyway. Our literature and painting have always been entirely distinct, we take architecture from them but make it our own, classical music was just something we aren't very good at, and in modern terms here's a list: Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, and Queen. Here's another: Dylan, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Neil Young, Prince, Ramones, Velvet Underground, The Doors. Here's a third: Johnny Hallyday, Kraftwerk. Get my drift?
The UK has always had one foot inside Europe, and one foot out. Always has, always will. So black and white arguments either which way don't work.
But, that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to explain why a federal Europe (obviously) wasn't for us.
All European countries are the same. They manage it fine.
Albania and Switzerland? Or within the EU Denmark and Bulgaria? Yup no difference there, none at all, peas in a pod.
The idea that the UK is unique in balancing European and Global interests is absurd. The idea that France ir Germany have been inhibited in their global ambitions by the EU doesn't match the facts.
Only to the extent that Germany doesn't have very extensive global ambitions due to its history. France is similar to us, and its politics are similarly fractious as ours. And that's with them having far more direction over EU policy than we ever did.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
National Swing appears to have become much less uniform than in the past- so it is probably quite a hit and miss exercise. At one time Gravesend - later Gravesham - was said to closely mirror national changes - though the seat has become much more volatile in recent decades and for the moment is safely Tory.
Corbyn's no longer authentic on Brexit and the public knows it.
He looks completely out of his depth
He has hardly had much to compete with on that score since the election though - most now take that view of May too!
Today's speech in complexity and depth is far removed from anything Corbyn could dream of doing.
I doubt that ! Such speeches are 90% written by civil servants . Corbyn would also have those resources available to him.
TM demonstrated a knowledge far in advance than anything Corbyn could hope to emulate
You obviously like to think that . I am not at all convinced. She is no more of a trained economist or lawyer etc than he is! He is,however, a better communicator.
She kept the very tricky Home Office brief far longer than anyone I can remember for Labour. That is no mean achievement. It also shows up Jeremy Slacke,r who has managed to slide through life not taking responsibility for anything he didn't like....
however she just hid for 5 years and made no decisions whatsoever so hardly encouraging.
Not getting fired from being Home Secretary is still way, way better than her Labour predecessors could manage....
You set a very low bar Mark
Roy Jenkins , James Callaghan, Merlyn Rees, Frank Soskice and Chuter Ede actually did ok in the post of Home Secretary!
yes but he was talking about the recent ones who were indeed very dire.
Jack Straw. "Machine-gunner" Blunkett. Charles Clarke. John Reid. Jacqui Smith (titter). Alan Johnson.
He should talk to some of his supporters - some were quoted gleefully on here yesterday about how dominating the EU would be to those outside of it and weaker than it, as a positive point for some reason. Listening and guiding is at least a nobler ambition.
Only to the extent that Germany doesn't have very extensive global ambitions due to its history. France is similar to us, and its politics are similarly fractious as ours. And that's with them having far more direction over EU policy than we ever did.
Germany is hugely successful and ambitious globally .
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Mid Derbyshire (and its predecessor Amber Valley) is more representative than both yes, so I changed it
Question for people who feel more at home in the Anglosphere: What do you think makes us different from Australians or Canadians? Perhaps it's our Europeanness.
I don't feel very different from either Australians or Canadians.
Does that include Quebecois and Inuit?
Yes. Because we have minorities in this country and Australia too, so while the Quebecois and Inuit may be a bit more "other"-ly than the Canadians I'd think of first so too in Australia are Aborigines and other minorities and so too in the UK are some minorities here.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Mid Derbyshire (and its predecessor Amber Valley) is more representative than both yes, so I changed it
There is still an Amber Valley seat.
Amber Valley is number 485 out of 632 for the last 3 elections. Not very accurate at forecasting the national swing recently. In 2015 and 2017 it moved to the Tories against the overall trend.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
We share a monarch with Yorkshire despite massive cultural differences.
Oh come on. The rest of Britain isn't that far behind.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
National Swing appears to have become much less uniform than in the past- so it is probably quite a hit and miss exercise. At one time Gravesend - later Gravesham - was said to closely mirror national changes - though the seat has become much more volatile in recent decades and for the moment is safely Tory.
Birmingham Yardley was the mirror of national change until 1992, when it was lost to Labour despite Major winning.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Lincoln
In the past Bedford has tended to be more Tory leaning than Lincoln. After a very narrow win in 1966 , Labour failed to win Bedford again until 1997. Lincoln fell to the Tories for the first time since World War 2 in 1979. Of course, boundary changes may have affected voting patterns in both seats.
Mid Derbyshire (and its predecessor Amber Valley) is more representative than both yes, so I changed it
There is still an Amber Valley seat.
Mid Derbyshire was created in 2010 mainly from the old Amber Valley seat with a bit of Erewash and Derby added too
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
I think this is, by and large, accurate.
I see two issues: Firstly some countries (India, South Africa, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, among others) are inherently multi-language.
There are plenty of Indians or South Africans who cannot converse with someone of their own country. (And I know a great many Flemish Belgians whose English is far, far better than their French.) And yet somehow these continue to be functioning countries.
Secondly, to use the example of Marseilles earlier. I don't feel at home in Marseilles. But I feel very at home in Cap Ferrat and Eze, just down the coast. I think the differences inside countries can often be as large as the ones between countries. The town-rural divide being, to my mind, every bit as large as the one between most countries.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
National Swing appears to have become much less uniform than in the past- so it is probably quite a hit and miss exercise. At one time Gravesend - later Gravesham - was said to closely mirror national changes - though the seat has become much more volatile in recent decades and for the moment is safely Tory.
Birmingham Yardley was the mirror of national change until 1992, when it was lost to Labour despite Major winning.
That's true although in some ways it was always a rather unusual constituency because it had one of the highest percentage of working-class voters of any Tory seat until 1992.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
National Swing appears to have become much less uniform than in the past- so it is probably quite a hit and miss exercise. At one time Gravesend - later Gravesham - was said to closely mirror national changes - though the seat has become much more volatile in recent decades and for the moment is safely Tory.
Birmingham Yardley was the mirror of national change until 1992, when it was lost to Labour despite Major winning.
Yardley did not fall to the Tories ,though, until 1959.
BBC reporting May's speech went down well in Brussels. Also amusing to see how Corbyn's response was clearly pre-drafted given it went on the "not enough detail" line and the speech was very detailed.
Point of order: Spain is a very, very foreign country. Definitely not to be bracketed with France, Italy, or Portugal, despite the superficial similarities.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - .
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Decreasingly so.
New Zealand is now over about 15% Maori, 7% Pacific Islanders,11% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern. Of the 2/3 of European heritage many are not British, indeed my own New Zealand family are part Dutch and part Maori.
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
He should talk to some of his supporters - some were quoted gleefully on here yesterday about how dominating the EU would be to those outside of it and weaker than it, as a positive point for some reason. Listening and guiding is at least a nobler ambition.
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - I'd expect a Spaniard would have more in common with a Portuguese than most, and indeed the two languages are fairly close. But I'd also say a Spaniard would have more in common with an Arggentine than a German. But I'm not a Spaniard - I'm only guessing.
I offer this as my opinion, and I would be interested to know what others think. I genuinely think language is massively important - the more polyglotally inclined and those with connections in Europe will obviously feel different, and there is no right answer.
I think this is, by and large, accurate.
I see two issues: Firstly some countries (India, South Africa, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, among others) are inherently multi-language.
There are plenty of Indians or South Africans who cannot converse with someone of their own country. (And I know a great many Flemish Belgians whose English is far, far better than their French.) And yet somehow these continue to be functioning countries.
Secondly, to use the example of Marseilles earlier. I don't feel at home in Marseilles. But I feel very at home in Cap Ferrat and Eze, just down the coast. I think the differences inside countries can often be as large as the ones between countries. The town-rural divide being, to my mind, every bit as large as the one between most countries.
I think your last line is overstated. I grew up in a big city (as a son of immigrants) and yet still feel more familiar with English country walks, pub cricket and orchards than I do with the local culture of Rome or Warsaw. Generally, I find the big divide is between megacities and the rest, rather than urban and rural.
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is fascinating. I would say we in the UK have most in common with: 1) the ROI 2) NZ 3) Aus 4) Canada 5) Some European countries - let's say Netherlands, Norway, Denmark 6) USA 7) Some other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Finalnd 8) Some other European countries - France, Italy, Spain
5, 6, 7 and 8are very fluid though.
As to Spain - .
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Decreasingly so.
New Zealand is now over about 15% Maori, 7% Pacific Islanders,11% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern. Of the 2/3 of European heritage many are not British, indeed my own New Zealand family are part Dutch and part Maori.
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
So yes a clear majority of New Zealanders are still of British origin as is also the case in Canada (outside Quebec) and Australia.
The fact they also have rising ethnic minority populations does not change much, so do we.
Would anyone be interested in seeing a spreadsheet featuring the constituencies which have most accurately mirrored the national swing over the last three elections?
Can't we try and guess first?
The seat at the top of the list is interesting.
I'm thinking it won't be Scottish.....
Out of 632 seats, Bedford is number 1. Here's the spreadsheet:
Yet Bedford went Labour and we still have a Tory PM
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 -
Yes but that would be thinking in terms of traditional bellwethers, which is to say where the result itself is in line with the national result. I was trying to do something slightly different and focus on the swing, which means that if one of the seats at the top of the list is declared early at the next election it may be possible to have a good idea of what the overall swing is going to be if the seat remains a good indicator of swing (which isn't guaranteed of course).
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
National Swing appears to have become much less uniform than in the past- so it is probably quite a hit and miss exercise. At one time Gravesend - later Gravesham - was said to closely mirror national changes - though the seat has become much more volatile in recent decades and for the moment is safely Tory.
Birmingham Yardley was the mirror of national change until 1992, when it was lost to Labour despite Major winning.
That's true although in some ways it was always a rather unusual constituency because it had one of the highest percentage of working-class voters of any Tory seat until 1992.
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
The Irish could give us a run for our money!
Some countries just seem to have more history than future. It is one of the many things that we share with mainland Eurasia, and younger countries on other continents seem to have it the other way round.
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
Germany. Case closed. They hugely constrain themselves, or try to be seen to at the least.
In fairness they try to be exemplary, and generally are. And when they are not I’m sure it’s cock up not conspiracy.
That's slightly different. Germany's history does not prevent it from having a totally clear view of its enlightened self-interest in the present day in the way that I think is true of both Russia and the UK.
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
I am uncomfortable with any claim that the UK is exceptional in any respect. Just for instance I think there were at least 10 genocides in the twentieth century, and I'd have thought any of the host countries would have a greater historical weight on their shoulders than any of the others.
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
I don't know how one would begin to quantify that. There are plenty of nations still arguing over disputes minor or major stretching back hundreds of years and which inform their directions to great or lesser degrees. Constrained by history going back how far? To what extent does the impact of that history fluctuate? Are we only including negative constraints?
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is
As to Spain - .
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Decreasingly so.
New Zealand is now over about 15% Maori, 7% Pacific Islanders,11% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern. Of the 2/3 of European heritage many are not British, indeed my own New Zealand family are part Dutch and part Maori.
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
So yes a clear majority of New Zealanders are still of British origin as is also the case in Canada (outside Quebec) and Australia.
The fact they also have rising ethnic minority populations does not change much, so do we.
London is almost 50% non white
If you discount the Irish! about 25% of "British" Australians and Kiwis are of Irish extraction. It is part of the strong strand of republicanism there.
More than half of Australians have one or both parents born overseas. Decreasingly British.
I've been using Andy's spreadsheet and it is interesting to see which seats have had the biggest cumulative swing to Con and which to Lab over the last 3 elections. The top 20 cumulative swings Con to Lab are mostly in London and the big cities:
Bradford W Bethnal Green Poplar Brum Hall Green Walthamstow Ilford S Bristol W Hove Manc Withington E Ham Brum Hodge Hill Leicester S Dulwich Hackney S Hackney N Holborn Hammersmith Sheffield Hallam Edinburgh S Leyton
The top 20 cumulative swings Lab to Con are in Scotland and the Midlands
Aberdeen S Cannock Ayr Falkirk Bolsover Brigg Airdrie Moray Inverness Leics NW Kirkcaldy Glasgow E Linlithgow Kilmarnock Mansfield Lanark Warks N Livingstone Ayrshire Central Stoke N
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
Germany. Case closed. They hugely constrain themselves, or try to be seen to at the least.
In fairness they try to be exemplary, and generally are. And when they are not I’m sure it’s cock up not conspiracy.
Modern Germany is liberated from its history . Essentially it has to operate if the world began in 1990.
I found it very interesting to see the long-term polling showing that support for the EU in the UK peaked around the time of German reunification and the end of the Cold War (and of course the fall of Thatcher).
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if they dont know, because my cultural Venn diagram overlaps theirs far more than it does a Bulgarian, or a Finn (heresy for you?). In reality in my experience most Californians without guidance struggle to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is
As to Spain - .
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
So yes a clear majority of New Zealanders are still of British origin as is also the case in Canada (outside Quebec) and Australia.
The fact they also have rising ethnic minority populations does not change much, so do we.
London is almost 50% non white
If you discount the Irish! about 25% of "British" Australians and Kiwis are of Irish extraction. It is part of the strong strand of republicanism there.
More than half of Australians have one or both parents born overseas. Decreasingly British.
Do you think it's good if the British population decreases?
If we could get to Australia in two hours on an Easyjet for a hundred quid, you'd have a point, but we can't.
And non of that stops me going to France next week!
I wonder how many Californians could tell you where Wales is on a map...
The point is I can tell them in nuance if t to point out European countries. Or even Europe on a map.
The is an illusion created by a common language in my view.
Think of it this way: Do you think someone from Portugal has more in common with a Spaniard or a Brazilian? I think most people would say a Spaniard. Why do you think the answer is different for us?
I’m not Brazilian or Portuguese so I haven’t the faintest. I know how I feel. And I feel massively more at home in Melbourne than I do in Marseille- and I speak French and have lived there.
How at home do you feel in Finsbury?
This is
As to Spain - .
We share a monarch with NZ, Aus and Canada unlike with the ROI
We share a monarch with Papua New Guinea too, but I don't think we or they would consider them to be very culturally akin with us.
True but most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside of Quebec) are of British origin
Decreasingly so.
New Zealand is now over about 15% Maori, 7% Pacific Islanders,11% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern. Of the 2/3 of European heritage many are not British, indeed my own New Zealand family are part Dutch and part Maori.
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
So yes a clear majority of New Zealanders are still of British origin on white
If you discount the Irish! about 25% of "British" Australians and Kiwis are of Irish extraction. It is part of the strong strand of republicanism there.
More than half of Australians have one or both parents born overseas. Decreasingly British.
Given plenty of Brits still emigrate to Australia (It is our number 1 destination for emigration) having a parent born overseas in Australia does not really change the point a vast amount.
Of course when the Australians voted on the monarchy 55% voted for, the same as voted No in Scotland and 3% more than voted Leave here
No country is more constrained by its history than Britain . Discuss.
Germany. Case closed. They hugely constrain themselves, or try to be seen to at the least.
In fairness they try to be exemplary, and generally are. And when they are not I’m sure it’s cock up not conspiracy.
Modern Germany is liberated from its history . Essentially it has to operate if the world began in 1990.
But it doesn't though, the way it is now, the sort of country it wants to be, and not be, is based on what took place before. That's not a bad thing in their case, clearly, but just because they are reacting positively in response to their recent history does not mean they are not massively impacted and therefore contained by it. Heck, for any country that breaks so decisively away from either ancient tradition or more recent negative history, that break is itself showing the impact and constraint of said history due to the reaction to it.
It's why I struggle with the idea we are more constrained by our history than other nations would be, it seems more likely all are equally constrained, but it shows itself more obviously in some than others, particularly when it comes to negative parts.
Comments
I know how I feel, and how the EU made me feel awkward in retrospect, as a member.
I’d rather be a good neighbour than a surly lodger to quote Mr Salmond.
Shakespeares plays were often set in Italy, Denmark, Greece or Rome. They are often rooted in older European stories, as were Chaucer's. Our Royal family is ethnically German, and our Puritan revolution and Non-Conformist churches in the writings of the Swiss Calvin. There are many further interactions and cultural hybridisations with mainland Europe. Ours is a distinct strand, but is most definitely part of a broader European tapestry. Both ourselves and the continent are culturally richer and better for it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11T6XLQh2ss-Ul9UjG8TzJCvhEFMp0VmsbR8KbSZ_FL0/edit#
And I write as someone who voted ‘remain’....
Perhaps Quebec should join the EU and we could join NAFTA
British exceptionalism is a myth.
So of the marginals on that list I give it to Mid Derbyshire, Tory 1992, Labour 1997-2010, Tory 2010 - and the 29th closest to the national swing in 2017
In other words, if Bedford declares early next time and it's a 1% swing to Labour, it may be a fairly good indicator that the national swing will be around 1% to Labour as well, even if the swing is, say, 3% to Labour or 1% to the Conservatives with all the seats declared at that time. It would be best of course to take a selection of the seats at the top of the list rather than just one or two.
Personally I have no issue accepting that parts of our culture are closer to mainland europeans than the anglosphere, and vice versa. Surely one of the points of the EU, except for fanatics, was that while we share values with one another it was a melting pot of myriad peoples and cultures which retain distinct identities. Indeed, that is a gripe some have, that they believe we did not need to leave to emphasise our distinctness. That may well be true, but nor does it make our believing in a distinctness false, since within or without we are supposed to be distinct. Other nations, when it suits them, will always point to their uniqueness on some point. In that regard we are all both alike and exceptional at the same time really.
https://twitter.com/chrismasonbbc/status/969695783594352640?s=21
Jack Straw. "Machine-gunner" Blunkett. Charles Clarke. John Reid. Jacqui Smith (titter). Alan Johnson.
I see two issues: Firstly some countries (India, South Africa, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, among others) are inherently multi-language.
There are plenty of Indians or South Africans who cannot converse with someone of their own country. (And I know a great many Flemish Belgians whose English is far, far better than their French.) And yet somehow these continue to be functioning countries.
Secondly, to use the example of Marseilles earlier. I don't feel at home in Marseilles. But I feel very at home in Cap Ferrat and Eze, just down the coast. I think the differences inside countries can often be as large as the ones between countries. The town-rural divide being, to my mind, every bit as large as the one between most countries.
New Zealand is now over about 15% Maori, 7% Pacific Islanders,11% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern. Of the 2/3 of European heritage many are not British, indeed my own New Zealand family are part Dutch and part Maori.
Much the same applies to Canada and Australia. Vancouver is quite Chinese, Melboune quite Greek and Italian etc etc.
https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/969342313045594112
The fact they also have rising ethnic minority populations does not change much, so do we.
London is almost 50% non white
Tier 2 - America
Tier 3 - ROI, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Germany,
Tier 4 - Old Europe, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and the Eastern European countries
Tier 900 - France
But for the top prize I would give to Russia.
Some countries just seem to have more history than future. It is one of the many things that we share with mainland Eurasia, and younger countries on other continents seem to have it the other way round.
In fairness they try to be exemplary, and generally are. And when they are not I’m sure it’s cock up not conspiracy.
Tier 1 - France, USA.
Tier 2 - Aus,NZ,Canada,ROI
Tier 3 - Western Europe and Rest of Commonwealth
More than half of Australians have one or both parents born overseas. Decreasingly British.
Bradford W
Bethnal Green
Poplar
Brum Hall Green
Walthamstow
Ilford S
Bristol W
Hove
Manc Withington
E Ham
Brum Hodge Hill
Leicester S
Dulwich
Hackney S
Hackney N
Holborn
Hammersmith
Sheffield Hallam
Edinburgh S
Leyton
The top 20 cumulative swings Lab to Con are in Scotland and the Midlands
Aberdeen S
Cannock
Ayr
Falkirk
Bolsover
Brigg
Airdrie
Moray
Inverness
Leics NW
Kirkcaldy
Glasgow E
Linlithgow
Kilmarnock
Mansfield
Lanark
Warks N
Livingstone
Ayrshire Central
Stoke N
I mean of course Les États-Unis
Brampton is just like Southall, but with nicer houses.
Of course when the Australians voted on the monarchy 55% voted for, the same as voted No in Scotland and 3% more than voted Leave here
It's why I struggle with the idea we are more constrained by our history than other nations would be, it seems more likely all are equally constrained, but it shows itself more obviously in some than others, particularly when it comes to negative parts.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Germany-Memories-Dr-Neil-MacGregor/dp/0241008336
Absolutely fascinating stuff. History is ever-present in Germany, but unspoken. And it was a glorious history, until the 30th January 1933.