politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Starmer is unlikely to be the next PM

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LostPassword said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.

Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.

What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.

Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.

Blair was never Scottish

He was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. What do you have to do to qualify as Scottish?

The SNP did promise civic nationalism - not pure enough for you?

The much more interesting question would be does Tony Blair consider himself Scottish? I doubt it but am open to persuasion.

IDS was born in Scotland so is also Scottish arguably

He's a Surrey Highlander.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Dura_Ace said:

Which Bundesliga team are we all adopting? I am going with FC St Pauli for their impeccable left wing and anti-fash credentials. Even though they are having a shit year.

Careful, you'll be accused of being a de facto Celtic supporter.

Means I must be a Rangers supporter

With that avatar?

Have you been south of Derby?

LostPassword said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LostPassword said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.

Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.

What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.

Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.

Blair was never Scottish

He was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. What do you have to do to qualify as Scottish?

The SNP did promise civic nationalism - not pure enough for you?

The much more interesting question would be does Tony Blair consider himself Scottish? I doubt it but am open to persuasion.

My guess is that he would think of himself as British more than anything else, but Scottish enough to get a Scottish passport after independence.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Scott_xP said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ironically a drought could be good for Boris if he takes the opportunity to build new reservoirs and pipelines, creating jobs and helping to get the economy moving again.

Where?

The NIMBYs are not going to be in favour

Reservoirs are basically big lakes that encourage wildfowl and wildflowers so I'd not expect much objection, unless Boris opts for big, ugly, concrete swimming pools instead, but given he nearly gave us the garden bridge, we may be all right there.

Gallowgate said:

HMG needs to put together a team of very capable people to review all the “care-home” models around the world and prepare a report on much needed reform to the whole sector. HMG needs to then actually implement it. It should have been done yesterday.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.

Maybe after the election and with a referendum. Labour can't do pre-election deals because it brings the unanswerable question of "would you do a deal with the SNP?"

Can’t avoid it forever. A deal with the SNP is pretty much a necessity in order for Labour to form a Government under FPTP.

If that's Labour thinking then you might as well wave goodbye to majority government forever. People just won't vote for a party that aims to be in minority government, not in enough numbers to depose us. Your aim has got to be more than just "deny the Tories as majority" we'll keep winning if we're the only party that can offer majority government.

Blair delivered a majority by appealing to our voters, I don't know where Starmer stands but on recent history Labour seems more interested in lecturing and hectoring our voters for having the temerity to vote Tory, that was true under Ed as well.

Yes. All this FPTP is not fair is ridiculous. If enough voters in, say, Arundel and South Down and any other Cons constituency vote Labour there will be a Labour majority government.

It's all about the policies.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.

Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.

What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.

Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.

Blair was never Scottish

Blair was born in Edinburgh and went to School in Scotland, he was Scottish

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

LostPassword said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Scott_xP said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ironically a drought could be good for Boris if he takes the opportunity to build new reservoirs and pipelines, creating jobs and helping to get the economy moving again.

Where?

The NIMBYs are not going to be in favour

Reservoirs are basically big lakes that encourage wildfowl and wildflowers so I'd not expect much objection, unless Boris opts for big, ugly, concrete swimming pools instead, but given he nearly gave us the garden bridge, we may be all right there.

My Aunt used to live in a house near Kirk Ireton that is now underneath Carsington Water. I can't say that she was that happy about it.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate; they always could.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LostPassword said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.

Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.

What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.

Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.

Blair was never Scottish

He was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. What do you have to do to qualify as Scottish?

The SNP did promise civic nationalism - not pure enough for you?

The much more interesting question would be does Tony Blair consider himself Scottish? I doubt it but am open to persuasion.

IDS was born in Scotland so is also Scottish arguably

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I know you have a bitter take on Boris but you may find that the public enquiries have a lot more to say about the public health bodies and the scientific advisors

Advisors advise, ministers decide...

https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1260665437790130177

You seem to think that Boris and the three first ministers are going to overrule advice and set their own course.

Care homes across the nation are suffering the same so lets see the attacks on Nicola, Drakeford and Foster.

None of them acted differently

The clue is the new action on care homes, including medical liaison and measures to stop staff moving between homes. It may have taken HMG far too long but, at least at first glance, this looks impressive.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/care-home-support-package-backed-by-600-million-to-help-reduce-coronavirus-infections

Unfortunately my Mother in Laws excellent care home in the Isle of Wight now has several cases. Worrying, and a desperately sad situation.

One of the many awful things about Covid-19 is how people die without family around them. Even our hardy ICU consultants, who have made decisions to end intervention on a weekly basis for years find this distressing.

And, dare one venture to say it, the Covid crisis in care homes doesn't end with the disease. A high proportion of care home residents are demented, and are presently being warehoused in solitary confinement basically with no human contact apart from help with feeding and essential personal care, gradually wasting away despite the best efforts of the staff.

At the end of all of this there are going to be many relatives who, having left their loved ones in a state of mild cognitive impairment, go back again to discover that they are either completely uncommunicative or have no idea who this stranger who's just come to see them actually is.

There's arguably an issue here of the prioritisation of quantity of life over quality of life, but in your line of work I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that society often isn't very comfortable about having conversations on that subject.

I do wonder if, in at least the milder cases, there is now an obvious technological answer to the problem of social isolation in care homes. Zoom is not just for passing Cabinet secrets to China.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LostPassword said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.

Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.

What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.

Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.

Blair was never Scottish

He was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. What do you have to do to qualify as Scottish?

The SNP did promise civic nationalism - not pure enough for you?

The much more interesting question would be does Tony Blair consider himself Scottish? I doubt it but am open to persuasion.

IDS was born in Scotland so is also Scottish arguably

He's a Surrey Highlander.

Liam Fox and Michael Gove of course are Scottish born and raised too

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

It is inaccurate because you could always do that.

I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

It is inaccurate because you could always do that.

I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.

No you couldn't always within the guidance rules.

If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.

If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

It is inaccurate because you could always do that.

I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.

No you couldn't always within the guidance rules.

If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.

If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.

The article says "you can now do this". It elides the difference between the law and the guidance. Which I would expect the government to do but not the BBC.

It is an article on the BBC mobile app under "here's some advice on the rules on exercising".

justin124 said:

Mysticrose said:

"If Johnson looks like a loser"

There is so much that is right in this article that it's a pity the underlying premise renders it null and void.

Johnson won the Tories their biggest victory since Margaret Thatcher. She was given free rein in three General Elections (1979, 1983, 1987) and no one would touch her.

We tend to filter what we think we know through the prism of recent experience and I'm afraid David you have fallen foul of this. You're thinking Boris is Cameron. He isn't. Cameron did win but only just and his coalition victory followed by 12-seat majority gave the plotters the oxygen they needed.

Boris has one single undeniable firewall. He won handsomely. The party won't touch him.

The Tories won the 1983 and 1987 elections by significantly bigger majorities than Johnson managed in 2019 against Corbyn. That did not stop the Tories ditching her in 1990 when she became an electoral liability.

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

Mysticrose said:

"If Johnson looks like a loser"

There is so much that is right in this article that it's a pity the underlying premise renders it null and void.

Johnson won the Tories their biggest victory since Margaret Thatcher. She was given free rein in three General Elections (1979, 1983, 1987) and no one would touch her.

We tend to filter what we think we know through the prism of recent experience and I'm afraid David you have fallen foul of this. You're thinking Boris is Cameron. He isn't. Cameron did win but only just and his coalition victory followed by 12-seat majority gave the plotters the oxygen they needed.

Boris has one single undeniable firewall. He won handsomely. The party won't touch him.

The Tories won the 1983 and 1987 elections by significantly bigger majorities than Johnson managed in 2019 against Corbyn. That did not stop the Tories ditching her in 1990 when she became an electoral liability.

And as a result the Tories only won one majority for the next 25 years and the poll tax was far more unpopular with Tory voters than WTO terms with Boris will be with them

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

It is inaccurate because you could always do that.

I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.

No you couldn't always within the guidance rules.

If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.

If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.

The article says "you can now do this". It elides the difference between the law and the guidance. Which I would expect the government to do but not the BBC.

It is an article on the BBC mobile app under "here's some advice on the rules on exercising".

There we go you've just shown I'm right.

The law is the law. The rules are guidance. If the article said "here's some advice on the laws on exercising" you'd be right. It doesn't.

You can break the rules without breaking the law.

And the BBC, being a supposedly critical news organisation, should imo make exactly that distinction.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.

Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.

No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.

"Restrictions on gatherings

7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—

(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c)to attend a funeral,
etc..."

And the two metre rule is advice not the law.

Not all rules are laws.

The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.

That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.

It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.

If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"

You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.

You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.

Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.

So what?

You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?

Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.

The BBC says this today:

"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"

That is simply inaccurate.

It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.

Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.

It is inaccurate because you could always do that.

I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.

No you couldn't always within the guidance rules.

If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.

If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.

The article says "you can now do this". It elides the difference between the law and the guidance. Which I would expect the government to do but not the BBC.

It is an article on the BBC mobile app under "here's some advice on the rules on exercising".

There we go you've just shown I'm right.

The law is the law. The rules are guidance. If the article said "here's some advice on the laws on exercising" you'd be right. It doesn't.

You can break the rules without breaking the law.

And the BBC, being a supposedly critical news organisation, should imo make exactly that distinction.

It did if it referenced "guidelines" in the article like the link I gave. You haven't given one so I can only guess that's the same one.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is this the article you're upset about @TOPPING ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.

Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.

Actually the article says "rules".

Very confusing for many people.

It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demonstrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

Hah. I am from Solihull. IDS’s school was right next to my one (in fact there are three secondary schools on the same road). Solihull is pretty damn posh, especially so in IDS’s day.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is this the article you're upset about @TOPPING ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.

Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.

Actually the article says "rules".

Very confusing for many people.

It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.

You are proving my point for me. Are "rules" guidance or the law?

Clue: it is referring to the guidelines.

The rules are guidelines as the article says.

The law is the law. This isn't an article about the law. If it wanted to say law it would say law.

Socky said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demonstrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them.

The "Tories" are simply highlighting Starmer's hypocritical prolier than thou fibs: pretending to be working class when he is no such thing.

The wider point is that the SNP line that England is full of posho snobs is simply not true. In fact having an upper class background is a severe disadvantage, particularly in politics.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

Hah. I am from Solihull. IDS’s school was right next to my one (in fact there are three secondary schools on the same road). Solihull is pretty damn posh, especially so in IDS’s day.

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

coach said:

People expecting (hoping) Boris steps down are underestimating the ego of politicians especially at the highest level. Has it ever happened before?

OK they stand down rsather than be sacked or sometimes over a point of principle but boredom? No chance

Keep an eye on Boris's pulse, or rather his breathing. Several Prime Ministers retired on health grounds, including Eden, Macmillan and Wilson.

I don't think Wilson did so - despite repeated suggestions. When he returned as PM in March 1974 , he made it clear to those close to him that he would not be serving a full term - also indicated by failure to return to No.10. Suggestions of mental decline are contradicted by the work he undertook after leaving office - a further set of memoirs plus other books , chairing a Commission into the City , broadcasting and worldwide lectures. In so far as he was no longer as sharp as he had been, it was likely to have been the natural ageing process - ie being 60plus rather than 50. Early signs of dementia did not appear until the mid-1980s.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

Hah. I am from Solihull. IDS’s school was right next to my one (in fact there are three secondary schools on the same road). Solihull is pretty damn posh, especially so in IDS’s day.

Reigate is also pretty posh and Reigate grammar school is certainly poster thsn Bishop Glancey secondary modern

How do you know? Have you been to Bishop Glancey secondary modern? The school is actually now a catholic school, I used to fancy quite a few girls who went there.

Your obsession with Keir’s “poshness” is very weird though, I feel it’s something you should get over.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

Hah. I am from Solihull. IDS’s school was right next to my one (in fact there are three secondary schools on the same road). Solihull is pretty damn posh, especially so in IDS’s day.

Reigate is also pretty posh and Reigate grammar school is certainly poster thsn Bishop Glancey secondary modern

How do you know? Have you been to Bishop Glancey secondary modern? The school is actually now a catholic school, I used to fancy quite a few girls who went there.

Your obsession with Keir’s “poshness” is very weird though, I feel it’s something you should get over.

A secondary modern school can never be posh by definition, a grammar school will always be poacher and a grammar school that became an independent school posted still.

I have no problem with Sir Keir being posh but it does mean the class warriors within Labour cannot play that card anymore

Black_Rook said:

In what's essentially a straight two-party fight, you have to believe that the Opposition is going to get Buggins' turn sooner or later. If it does then the incentive for reform necessarily evaporates.

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

coach said:

People expecting (hoping) Boris steps down are underestimating the ego of politicians especially at the highest level. Has it ever happened before?

OK they stand down rsather than be sacked or sometimes over a point of principle but boredom? No chance

Keep an eye on Boris's pulse, or rather his breathing. Several Prime Ministers retired on health grounds, including Eden, Macmillan and Wilson.

I don't think Wilson did so - despite repeated suggestions. When he returned as PM in March 1974 , he made it clear to those close to him that he would not be serving a full term - also indicated by failure to return to No.10. Suggestions of mental decline are contradicted by the work he undertook after leaving office - a further set of memoirs plus other books , chairing a Commission into the City , broadcasting and worldwide lectures. In so far as he was no longer as sharp as he had been, it was likely to have been the natural ageing process - ie being 60plus rather than 50. Early signs of dementia did not appear until the mid-1980s.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is this the article you're upset about @TOPPING ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.

Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.

Actually the article says "rules".

Very confusing for many people.

It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.

You are proving my point for me. Are "rules" guidance or the law?

Clue: it is referring to the guidelines.

The rules are guidelines as the article says.

The law is the law. This isn't an article about the law. If it wanted to say law it would say law.

The article says this:

"This easing only applies to two individuals from separate households"

"This easing".

But it was always the case.

No it explicitly wasn't. If you think it was the provide the previous guidelines (which is what this article is about) that says it was previously allowed.

You're comparing apples with oranges. New guidelines need to be compared with old guidelines while new laws need to be compared with old laws.

The BBC should be making the distinction.

It should be explaining and examining the government's actions in the round, not acting as a government spokesman.

Why? Why should it?

This is an article about guidelines. Why should it need to explain the difference between guidelines and law? The words mean different things and they used the right words.

You made a mistake and misread the article. Stop digging a hole.

justin124 said:

Jonathan said:

Reasons leaders have departed early before facing an election....

1) Total political failure (Eden, Cameron)
2) An obvious electoral liability (May, IDS)
3) Outstayed their welcome after a long stint (Thatcher, Blair)
4) Health (Macmillan, Wilson, Churchill, Gaitskill, Smith)

The others leaders left after defeat (some after hanging on too long). So where does that leave Boris going before 2024? Most like 4, then 2, then 1. I suspect if defeat become likely he will not hang around to take the humiliation.

Jonathan said:

Reasons leaders have departed early before facing an election....

1) Total political failure (Eden, Cameron)
2) An obvious electoral liability (May, IDS)
3) Outstayed their welcome after a long stint (Thatcher, Blair)
4) Health (Macmillan, Wilson, Churchill, Gaitskill, Smith)

The others leaders left after defeat (some after hanging on too long). So where does that leave Boris going before 2024? Most like 4, then 2, then 1. I suspect if defeat become likely he will not hang around to take the humiliation.

Eden was also unwell - though I do not believe Wilson resigned due to health concerns.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is this the article you're upset about @TOPPING ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.

Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.

Actually the article says "rules".

Very confusing for many people.

It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.

You are proving my point for me. Are "rules" guidance or the law?

Clue: it is referring to the guidelines.

The rules are guidelines as the article says.

The law is the law. This isn't an article about the law. If it wanted to say law it would say law.

The article says this:

"This easing only applies to two individuals from separate households"

"This easing".

But it was always the case.

No it explicitly wasn't. If you think it was the provide the previous guidelines (which is what this article is about) that says it was previously allowed.

You're comparing apples with oranges. New guidelines need to be compared with old guidelines while new laws need to be compared with old laws.

The BBC should be making the distinction.

It should be explaining and examining the government's actions in the round, not acting as a government spokesman.

Why? Why should it?

This is an article about guidelines. Why should it need to explain the difference between guidelines and law? The words mean different things and they used the right words.

You made a mistake and misread the article. Stop digging a hole.

Strange response. Of course the BBC should be making the distinction. It is there to inform. Not to support the government's position which was clearly set out by @Ishmael_Z although to be fair it is obvious to everyone apart from small children.

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

LostPassword said:

Barnesian said:

Gallowgate said:

The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.

And the SNP need to make a deal with Keir Starmer on a referendum on independence.

The two demands go together.

If the Scots get independence then the Labour needs STV to avoid permanent Tory hegemony in England and Wales.

STV prevents the SNP from winning disproportionate numbers of MPs. I don't know how Labour have done with STV in Scottish local elections, but I'd have thought it's one of their best chances of a recovery in Westminster elections in Scotland.

STV in England and Wales would be implemented after the Scots get independence. It would be up to the Scots what system they adopt subsequently.

STV would likely prevent there ever being a majority Labour government again, just as for the Tories.

The LDs and occasionally the Brexit Party or another UKIP style party would always be Kingmakers

Black_Rook said:

Socky said:

Black_Rook said:

In what's essentially a straight two-party fight, you have to believe that the Opposition is going to get Buggins' turn sooner or later. If it does then the incentive for reform necessarily evaporates.

Looking at the USA I wonder if there is a natural inclination to drift to two balanced parties each with approximately 50% support? i.e. the party with

Not when ideology gets in the way.

Labour may be too wedded to metrocentric wokeism to win it the votes it needs in England for some years to come - and the consequent prospect of having to lean on SNP support to get back into Government won't help it to recover lost support either.

Socky said:

Black_Rook said:

In what's essentially a straight two-party fight, you have to believe that the Opposition is going to get Buggins' turn sooner or later. If it does then the incentive for reform necessarily evaporates.

Looking at the USA I wonder if there is a natural inclination to drift to two balanced parties each with approximately 50% support? i.e. the party with

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.

I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.

It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?

And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.

You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.

?
Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.

Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?

I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.

He was infected by Scottishness?

There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.

So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.

Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.

It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.

Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England.
We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc.
There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.

Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.

On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home

Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.

Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there

But not when he started.

And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?

And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.

If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.

IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.

May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.

Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.

He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair

Starmer has unquestionably achieved more personally than any other UK political leader for a very long time. To find another leader who started where he did and arrived where he is now would be a tough task until you get to people like Major, Heath, Kinnock, Callaghan and Wilson. Of them, perhaps only Wilson can match what Starmer achieved before he entered politics. Tories who wish to portray him as posh should continue to do so, in my view. They merely demonstrate just how little they understand working class aspiration.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is this the article you're upset about @TOPPING ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.

Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.

Actually the article says "rules".

Very confusing for many people.

It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.

You are proving my point for me. Are "rules" guidance or the law?

Clue: it is referring to the guidelines.

The rules are guidelines as the article says.

The law is the law. This isn't an article about the law. If it wanted to say law it would say law.

The article says this:

"This easing only applies to two individuals from separate households"

"This easing".

But it was always the case.

No it explicitly wasn't. If you think it was the provide the previous guidelines (which is what this article is about) that says it was previously allowed.

You're comparing apples with oranges. New guidelines need to be compared with old guidelines while new laws need to be compared with old laws.

The BBC should be making the distinction.

It should be explaining and examining the government's actions in the round, not acting as a government spokesman.

Why? Why should it?

This is an article about guidelines. Why should it need to explain the difference between guidelines and law? The words mean different things and they used the right words.

You made a mistake and misread the article. Stop digging a hole.

Strange response. Of course the BBC should be making the distinction. It is there to inform. Not to support the government's position which was clearly set out by @Ishmael_Z although to be fair it is obvious to everyone apart from small children.

It is informing what the new guidelines are.

If you want to be informed what the word guidelines means then consult a dictionary.

rottenborough said:

Will Britain’s Pubs Survive the Coronavirus?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/british-pubs-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage