Punters remain confident that there will be a deal – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Coming soon to ITV1 on Saturday nights...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Of all the positions on the monarchy, the idea of William succeeding directly after HMQ is the most ludicrous. Either you believe in the principle of a hereditary monarchy or you don't. If you're going to depart from the proper line of succession and choose who becomes Head of State, it's not obvious that William Wales would be the ideal candidate, you'd probably want to cast the net a little wider.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue0 -
Good thread besides 25/25 which is petty and silly.MattW said:
This is very @jonworth :-)MaxPB said:
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.Richard_Nabavi said:There has been a lot of well-informed discussion on Twitter* on the question of whether it is legally and politically possible to agree a deal at this ludicrously late stage and have it apply on Jan 1st.
For example, see here and the various replies to this tweet and the quoted thread:
https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/status/1338890975889027075
The truth seems to be that no-one really knows. It might be possible to fudge something, but it's far from certain. There might have to be some chaotic interlude where no-one quite knows what the rules are, and tariffs might have to be collected and possibly reimbursed later. Whatever happens, it's a God-awful mess.
* I know, I know - but if you follow the right people, there's a a lot of good stuff there.
(which probably means 90% correct even if you disagree with him).
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1338861722539417616
There's no deal yet because both sides are still negotiating and moving very slowly not because anyone isn't making a decision.0 -
Unfortunate wording?kle4 said:
We're regularly informed we've moved backwards. By imperal nostalgists and self pitiers, getting it from both ends.TheScreamingEagles said:
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.ydoethur said:
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
I am not advocating it, I would still be happy for Charles to succeed the Queen, given he is already 72 he is likely to have a relatively short reign like Edward VIIth did between the long reigns of his mother Victoria and his son George Vth.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I was merely posting the polls0 -
Depends what the polling says.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.0 -
But even doing that would get you a quick free ride to Tyburn in the days of good king Henry (assuming you are not an aristocrat).HYUFD said:
I am not advocating it, I would still be happy for Charles to succeed the Queen, given he is already 72 he is likely to have a relatively short reign like Edward VIIth did between the long reigns of his mother Victoria and his son George Vth.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I was merely posting the polls0 -
Ok, who is leaking this info the Scot Nats?Carnyx said:
The machine gun towers on the Kent border?TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale said:FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.0 -
'Prince Charles is ready to becoming king...'kle4 said:
I'm still too afraid to see if this article is a parody or notydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne. “Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-prince-charles-plans-if-queen-elizabeth-steps-down/
A bit of the Queen's English wouldn't go amiss there.0 -
AIUI even asking the question got you the chop/noose (depending on your status).kle4 said:
Depends what the polling says.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.0 -
No. The position is as it always was. No Deal is a plan Z for the EU but is not an option at all for the UK. Both sides know this and always have. Thus a Deal is certain. We will get what we need on FOM and Fish. They will get what they need on the LPF. It's now just about the optics for Johnson and his need to sell the outcome to the ERG. Most of his Leaver base will go along with whatever he comes up with.MarqueeMark said:
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.MaxPB said:
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.0 -
Really? I thought for asking they just cut your ears off.Carnyx said:
AIUI even asking the question got you the chop/noose (depending on your status).kle4 said:
Depends what the polling says.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.0 -
I think that was a bit later - C18 or so?ydoethur said:
Really? I thought for asking they just cut your ears off.Carnyx said:
AIUI even asking the question got you the chop/noose (depending on your status).kle4 said:
Depends what the polling says.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.0 -
-
Young royals used to get impatient about getting power and rebel against their dead old dads, maybe Charles, Edward and the other one are preparing a little rebellion (Anne's loyal, I'm sure).0
-
Notwithstanding my past referencing of Debbie Does Dallas sequels, I'm a delicate flower, so yes.Carnyx said:
Unfortunate wording?kle4 said:
We're regularly informed we've moved backwards. By imperal nostalgists and self pitiers, getting it from both ends.TheScreamingEagles said:
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.ydoethur said:
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment1 -
No, Tudors as well. It was, for example, the punishment for repeating stories about Dudley’s alleged affair with Elizabeth I.Carnyx said:
I think that was a bit later - C18 or so?ydoethur said:
Really? I thought for asking they just cut your ears off.Carnyx said:
AIUI even asking the question got you the chop/noose (depending on your status).kle4 said:
Depends what the polling says.Carnyx said:
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.1 -
Ok so change is nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Do I detect a note of exasperation there, Philip?Philip_Thompson said:
Ok so change is nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
At Peston being a contradictor.ydoethur said:
Do I detect a note of exasperation there, Philip?Philip_Thompson said:
Ok so change is nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
1 -
Ah, I understand. I thought you were criticising the government’s flip flopping,which seemed out of character.Philip_Thompson said:
At Peston being a contradictor.ydoethur said:
Do I detect a note of exasperation there, Philip?Philip_Thompson said:
Ok so change is nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Wales was certainly not wealthier than Scotland in the Middle Ages.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many. many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
When do you believe Glamorgan to have been richer than Surrey?0 -
(i) I said "recent history".ydoethur said:
Wales was certainly not wealthier than Scotland in the Middle Ages.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many. many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
When do you believe Glamorgan to have been richer than Surrey?
(ii) The source is Simon Jenkins who has repeatedly made the assertion in his writings. I assume it refers to the nineteenth century. (I have not checked it myself).
But, nonetheless, you have not explained how you see Wales changing the trajectory it is on. We are both agreed that the current trajectory ("rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy") is very damaging.0 -
Given the habits of originator of the merging the Supreme Head of the Church and Monarchy - surely that is a recommendation?TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
0
-
-
Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!1 -
Yes, Jenkins is correct in that case, but that was the ‘brief burst’ of prosperity I had in mind. Prior to the development of iron in Merthyr, Glamorgan was actually the poorest county in England and Wales.YBarddCwsc said:
(i) I said "recent history".ydoethur said:Wales was certainly not wealthier than Scotland in the Middle Ages.
When do you believe Glamorgan to have been richer than Surrey?
(ii) The source is Simon Jenkins who has repeatedly made the assertion in his writings. I assume it refers to the nineteenth century. (I have not checked it myself).
But, nonetheless, you have not explained how you see Wales changing the trajectory it is on. We are both agreed that the current trajectory ("rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy") is very damaging.
The reason I haven’t explained how Wales changes its current trajectory is because I have no realistic idea of how it does it. There isn’t an option that would improve things without better leadership, which isn’t available.0 -
-
LOL no just a joke about Peston. Autocorrect in my prior post it was meant to say contraindicator but I'm guessing you guessed that.ydoethur said:
Ah, I understand. I thought you were criticising the government’s flip flopping,which seemed out of character.Philip_Thompson said:
At Peston being a contradictor.ydoethur said:
Do I detect a note of exasperation there, Philip?Philip_Thompson said:
Ok so change is nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!4 -
You know Scott I worry for your mental healthScott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!
As far as I am aware Drakeford is very against any change as he stated in the Senedd today and no doubt that is because he said it would not be needed following the firebreak
These are complex issues and it is very controversial
I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable1 -
The art will be to come up with an LPF divergence mechanism that gives the UK the right to diverge in theory (sovereignty!) but where the disadvantages of doing so are fully priced in. Sort of "Here's the cake for you to have. You don't have to keep it. You can eat it if you want, but if you do, you will have to pay for it".kinabalu said:
No. The position is as it always was. No Deal is a plan Z for the EU but is not an option at all for the UK. Both sides know this and always have. Thus a Deal is certain. We will get what we need on FOM and Fish. They will get what they need on the LPF. It's now just about the optics for Johnson and his need to sell the outcome to the ERG. Most of his Leaver base will go along with whatever he comes up with.MarqueeMark said:
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.MaxPB said:
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
The likelihood is that then only an utter loon would use the divergence in pract...
Oh.3 -
Seems sensible. Everyone knows the Police aren't going to raid Christmas dinner but making people think twice about gatherings seems sensible.Scott_xP said:1 -
I agree that the available leadership in Wales is unbelievably poor.ydoethur said:
The reason I haven’t explained how Wales changes its current trajectory is because I have no realistic idea of how it does it. There isn’t an option that would improve things without better leadership, which isn’t available.
I think all the Welsh posters are agreed on that
0 -
Is that the one where you don’t go around shagging lots of other women and lying to your wife about it, reneging on a deal you signed without reading while blaming other people and admit you hired a lunatic with a small brain as an exec before firing him?turbotubbs said:
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!2 -
I don’t think he is, tbh. No one is mandating people meet up. The general restrictions of the tiers will remain. It just allows a larger bubble for a few days. Many of us think it’s too big a risk for us or our relatives, and will wait a bit longer. Others cannot wait. Plus an unenforceable law is a bad law, and banning all meetings on Christmas would be flouted in houses through the length and breadth of the isles. Even lockdown Germany is having an easing for Christmas.RobD said:
Are you okay?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!0 -
What do they mean "limiting travel?" They have cancelled roadworks, postponed rail engineering works, paid coach operators to put on more buses - everything they can to get as many people travelling as possible.Scott_xP said:0 -
Hope you all followed my 9/2 tip on Wolves to beat Chelsea0
-
This one doesYBarddCwsc said:
I agree that the available leadership in Wales is unbelievably poor.ydoethur said:
The reason I haven’t explained how Wales changes its current trajectory is because I have no realistic idea of how it does it. There isn’t an option that would improve things without better leadership, which isn’t available.
I think all the Welsh posters are agreed on that0 -
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.0 -
Charles is most popular with Londoners and Remainers in that poll and tied with Wiliam for popularity in Scotland, Leavers prefer William as does every other UK region.kle4 said:Young royals used to get impatient about getting power and rebel against their dead old dads, maybe Charles, Edward and the other one are preparing a little rebellion (Anne's loyal, I'm sure).
So perhaps Charles will be King of the Remainers against the current Brexiteer establishment in which case he might prefer Starmer as PM to Boris?0 -
I do not bet but good call, well doneNerysHughes said:Hope you all followed my 9/2 tip on Wolves to beat Chelsea
0 -
David Patton/CricketWyvern is now at the level of "Why R U not Com🍐 ing Sweedun to Belgium" levels of chat now when people suggest Sweden might not have got it perfectly right.0
-
The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!
The other aspect is at the end of a difficult year Christmas represents, even more than those of a religious convictions would assert, a time for joy and renewal. Promising a degree of normality for Christmas was inevitable - any Government would have done so. This Government thrives on peddling pie-in-the-sky optimism and its leader is relentlessly upbeat so pouring cold water on Christmas would be politically unacceptable.
After all, you have to offer people some hope otherwise they might start asking the difficult questions such as what the point of the Government is and why anyone should support it.3 -
No point cancelling it yet whilst there's still another good week of shopping to be done for it0
-
Are you talking about Drakeford, surely not !!!!!!ydoethur said:
Is that the one where you don’t go around shagging lots of other women and lying to your wife about it, reneging on a deal you signed without reading while blaming other people and admit you hired a lunatic with a small brain as an exec before firing him?turbotubbs said:
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!0 -
They cancelled Eid without a murmurstodge said:The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.
I wonder what the difference might be..?0 -
Overcrowding wouldn't make things any better.RochdalePioneers said:
What do they mean "limiting travel?" They have cancelled roadworks, postponed rail engineering works, paid coach operators to put on more buses - everything they can to get as many people travelling as possible.Scott_xP said:0 -
Certainly not,Big_G_NorthWales said:
Are you talking about Drakeford, surely not !!!!!!ydoethur said:
Is that the one where you don’t go around shagging lots of other women and lying to your wife about it, reneging on a deal you signed without reading while blaming other people and admit you hired a lunatic with a small brain as an exec before firing him?turbotubbs said:
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!
I was talking about A ‘Different’ Johnson.0 -
In non-Covid/Brexit "news". I am using Mrs RP doing other things for a pre-Christmas Bond film. A View to a Kill was the next one in line. I have a sad affection for the John Glen movies, absurd as an increasingly aged Bond looked as he battled baddies and arthritis to pull girls younger than his own daughter.
Glorious fun of the kind that the current franchise doesn't seem to understand.0 -
One is a minority religious festival, the other (primarily) a secular family based gathering enjoyed by most (if not all) faiths.Scott_xP said:
They cancelled Eid without a murmurstodge said:The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.
I wonder what the difference might be..?4 -
You do not know who is saying it but Drakeford was publically against any change in the Senedd announcement today which I doubt you watchedScott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.
Your hatred of Boris clouds your judgement too much1 -
Yule get it if you think long enough.Scott_xP said:
They cancelled Eid without a murmurstodge said:The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.
I wonder what the difference might be..?3 -
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.2 -
I know, I was a bit naughty, sorryydoethur said:
Certainly not,Big_G_NorthWales said:
Are you talking about Drakeford, surely not !!!!!!ydoethur said:
Is that the one where you don’t go around shagging lots of other women and lying to your wife about it, reneging on a deal you signed without reading while blaming other people and admit you hired a lunatic with a small brain as an exec before firing him?turbotubbs said:
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!
I was talking about A ‘Different’ Johnson.0 -
Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.
Wasn’t that your plan?Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.
1 -
Didn’t the aptly named* Roger Moore resign the role when he found he was older than his love interest’s mother?RochdalePioneers said:In non-Covid/Brexit "news". I am using Mrs RP doing other things for a pre-Christmas Bond film. A View to a Kill was the next one in line. I have a sad affection for the John Glen movies, absurd as an increasingly aged Bond looked as he battled baddies and arthritis to pull girls younger than his own daughter.
Glorious fun of the kind that the current franchise doesn't seem to understand.
*Bizarrely, autocorrect made that ‘naked.’0 -
Shopping and it's a national public holiday for anyone Christian, atheist or other.Scott_xP said:
They cancelled Eid without a murmurstodge said:The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.
I wonder what the difference might be..?
They cancelled Easter without a murmur too and that is the actual religious holiday.2 -
I thought all Hornby brand manufacture had been exported to China and India since the 1990s, so not too many people in Margate reliant on Hornby jobs as there once were.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
They probably can't win either way in the medium to long term, although everyone and his dog knew the 2-week Wales firebreak had nothing going for it in any way. That was a decision hand-picked to please precisely nobody but achieve nothing for it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable0 -
To be fair, go back far enough and historical wealth simply meant counting the sheep.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.1 -
At the time of Cobbett's Rural Rides, Surrey was not a wealthy county. Much of it was heathland and scrub, poor for farming, and it didn't have Sussex's natural resources such as iron ore depositsYBarddCwsc said:
(i) I said "recent history".ydoethur said:
Wales was certainly not wealthier than Scotland in the Middle Ages.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many. many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
When do you believe Glamorgan to have been richer than Surrey?
(ii) The source is Simon Jenkins who has repeatedly made the assertion in his writings. I assume it refers to the nineteenth century. (I have not checked it myself).
But, nonetheless, you have not explained how you see Wales changing the trajectory it is on. We are both agreed that the current trajectory ("rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy") is very damaging.0 -
-
Shouldn’t the laws of succession be changed to prevent a Remainer from becoming King?HYUFD said:
Charles is most popular with Londoners and Remainers in that poll and tied with Wiliam for popularity in Scotland, Leavers prefer William as does every other UK region.kle4 said:Young royals used to get impatient about getting power and rebel against their dead old dads, maybe Charles, Edward and the other one are preparing a little rebellion (Anne's loyal, I'm sure).
So perhaps Charles will be King of the Remainers against the current Brexiteer establishment in which case he might prefer Starmer as PM to Boris?1 -
Totally off topic, one of my colleagues managed a good typo today: Scientits
Sam Fox bursting out of a lab coat?1 -
People rely on bots to tell them who is trustworthy or not?Scott_xP said:0 -
-
Once in an interview panel for a post doc. My older colleague remarkably taken with one candidate, who was selected, and later became known as ‘Jugs’*.SandyRentool said:Totally off topic, one of my colleagues managed a good typo today: Scientits
Sam Fox bursting out of a lab coat?
* Not too her face...0 -
The 36 hours did me a world of good.IanB2 said:Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.
Wasn’t that your plan?Casino_Royale said:
You need to log off and take a break.Scott_xP said:
The scientists and medical chiefs have already said cancel Christmas.Big_G_NorthWales said:I would not like to be the decision makers who cannot win either way
And to be honest asking people to be aware and not take risks is not unreasonable
All BoZo has to do is say we are following the science.
But he won't.
Twat.0 -
-
He tried to quit several times. Got persuaded back. Which is the story of pretty much every Bond actor. Apart from Lazenby who decided to quit the leading role in the biggest movie franchise because his agent thought it would be good for his career...ydoethur said:
Didn’t the aptly named* Roger Moore resign the role when he found he was older than his love interest’s mother?RochdalePioneers said:In non-Covid/Brexit "news". I am using Mrs RP doing other things for a pre-Christmas Bond film. A View to a Kill was the next one in line. I have a sad affection for the John Glen movies, absurd as an increasingly aged Bond looked as he battled baddies and arthritis to pull girls younger than his own daughter.
Glorious fun of the kind that the current franchise doesn't seem to understand.
*Bizarrely, autocorrect made that ‘naked.’1 -
Or Raquel Welch in tight body suit cruising around in POTUS lymph system and other presidential parts in "Fantastic Voyage".SandyRentool said:Totally off topic, one of my colleagues managed a good typo today: Scientits
Sam Fox bursting out of a lab coat?
Saw this flick at most impressionable age. Gave me a lasting awe for the wonders of creation!0 -
"Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England."YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
Wales has certainly been shafted on the development of its tidal resource by a handful of civil servants in London.
However, petty Welsh officialdom, greed, the north not wanting the south to have the glory of a world first technology (and the jobs), party political point-scoring and some suspect "entrepreneurs" have combined to give them perfect cover to get away with it.0 -
All this unseemly speculation about the succession after the Queen.
Can't we just be patient and see what happens in season 8 of The Crown?3 -
Speaking of Her Maj, Britbox has the coronation (narrated by Lawrence Olivier) in full - I'd never seen it before. It was interesting. They also have Charles and Di's wedding which I'm less interested in.Benpointer said:All this unseemly speculation about the succession after the Queen.
Can't we just be patient and see what happens in season 8 of The Crown?0 -
Well, well. Mr Johnson must be really worried about indyref2.williamglenn said:0 -
Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is some increase to be honest
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1338882538530549760?s=190 -
Off topic. But honestly, that West Brom kit really is something else.0
-
Who was running it when it was well off, then?YBarddCwsc said:For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland. There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments... Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich.0 -
If you need to ask then you're spending too long in twatter world.Scott_xP said:
They cancelled Eid without a murmurstodge said:The problem for Johnson and the Government is Christmas is such a symbolic not to say iconic time of the year. Many people and families have traditions and customs and for them such are sacrosanct and Christmas is by the same definition. Any attempt to actively prevent families getting together would have been widely flouted.
I wonder what the difference might be..?
Turn it off and spend some time in the real world.4 -
You make a convincing argument.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
I'm a firm believer in self determination. I don't see much evidence the Welsh want to take responsibility for themselves so I can imagine us in the future if the Scots and NI go having a country like the Cricket 🏏 team - officially England and Wales but people just say England most of the time.
If the Welsh did decide to move on from England I'd be surprised but have no sadness.1 -
-
On ice.solarflare said:
Coming soon to ITV1 on Saturday nights...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Of all the positions on the monarchy, the idea of William succeeding directly after HMQ is the most ludicrous. Either you believe in the principle of a hereditary monarchy or you don't. If you're going to depart from the proper line of succession and choose who becomes Head of State, it's not obvious that William Wales would be the ideal candidate, you'd probably want to cast the net a little wider.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur said:
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue0 -
They are trying to shoe-horn Boris and Brexit into that blame narrative.....Andy_JS said:
Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is some increase to be honest
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1338882538530549760?s=190 -
Na, they did so well in the first wave that being slightly worse than that is still very good.Andy_JS said:
Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is some increase to be honest
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1338882538530549760?s=190 -
I see Germany has passed 800 deaths announced today compared with 16,258 cases three weeks earlier. Last Tuesday they announced 622 deaths compared with 16,206 cases three weeks before. I wonder just how bad things are going to get there over the next few weeks.0
-
Off topic, I decided to dip into Putin's official twitter feed. It seems to be an endless stream of stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/KremlinRussia_E/status/1338489060650856453?s=20
Two observations:
1. Putin looks bored, tired and old.
2. His office is really crap.1 -
It's going to be like Game of Thrones isn't it? Overtakes the source material and then people call it disappointing.Benpointer said:All this unseemly speculation about the succession after the Queen.
Can't we just be patient and see what happens in season 8 of The Crown?2 -
Probably bored and tired of dealing with all the nobodies.Benpointer said:Off topic, I decided to dip into Putin's official twitter feed. It seems to be an endless stream of stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/KremlinRussia_E/status/1338489060650856453?s=20
Two observations:
1. Putin looks bored, tired and old.
2. His office is really crap.0 -
I think the problems started for Wales when people were allowed to go on European ski holidays. With strong leadership (and the banning of ski holidays) prosperity will be restored to Wales.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.0 -
Much as I oppose Scottish independence and Irish unity, Scotland and Northern Ireland at least have the argument they voted Remain while England voted Leave, Wales voted Leave just like England so has no complaints as far as Brexit is concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
You make a convincing argument.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
I'm a firm believer in self determination. I don't see much evidence the Welsh want to take responsibility for themselves so I can imagine us in the future if the Scots and NI go having a country like the Cricket 🏏 team - officially England and Wales but people just say England most of the time.
If the Welsh did decide to move on from England I'd be surprised but have no sadness.
Wales also could not survive as a prosperous economy outside both the UK and the EU, it has no major financial services industry or oil industry for starters0 -
Two old nationalists swapping war stories eh?HYUFD said:0 -
No, it's the one where you take responsibility for your own behaviour, rather than pointing at a person you've only ever "met" on TV and claiming "He made me do it"*.ydoethur said:
Is that the one where you don’t go around shagging lots of other women and lying to your wife about it, reneging on a deal you signed without reading while blaming other people and admit you hired a lunatic with a small brain as an exec before firing him?turbotubbs said:
Ever heard of personal responsibility?Scott_xP said:Christmas is saved.
BUT DON'T DO IT!!!
DON'T MEET ANYBODY, OR MOVE AROUND !!!
But Happy Christmas...
TWATS!
*Anyone who objects to, say, Dominic Cummings fine. People who claim - "I must meet all my elderly relatives and invite them to a 7,000 person rave at my place, because Dominic Cummings"... They go On The List.1 -
"**** business", your Prime Minister famosly said. It would do better independent from control by such a mentality.HYUFD said:
Much as I oppose Scottish independence and Irish unity, Scotland an Northern Ireland at least have the argument they voted Remain while England voted Leave, Wales voted Leave just like England so has no complaints as far as Brexit is concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
You make a convincing argument.YBarddCwsc said:
There is a reason why there are so very few Welsh Americans, but there are many more Scottish Americans and many, many more Irish Americans.ydoethur said:
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
Immigration is a sign that a country is poor, that the indigenous population cannot survive in its native land, that people see better economic prospects and greater prosperity elsewhere.
For much of recent history -- not just "a brief burst" -- Wales was MORE prosperous than Scotland and Ireland.
There was a time when Glamorgan was the richest county in England & Wales & Scotland. It was richer than Surrey and richer than Hampshire.
Wales has been made poor by the Westminster governments -- and the endless draining of resources from these islands to the great, selfish, wheedling, caterwauling, monster that is London & the South East of England.
Wales is a colony. Colonial economies are not run to make the indigenous population wealthy. The economy is run to make outsiders rich. That is e.g., why the Welsh economy has seen little benefit from the numerous wind-farms or renewables. There will be no great renaissance from greening the Welsh economy as long as the current regime persists.
The Republic of Ireland is becoming wealthier because it -- admittedly -- is a corporate tax haven.
The RoI has the freedom to undercut the corporation tax of neighbouring countries because it is independent. As long as the money from the US corporations is invested to reduce such dependence long term, as long as it is invested in the education of the population and in its public service infrastructure, I have no great problem with what the RoI is doing.
In fact, I'd be far, far happier with Wales following the path of the RoI than being a crying, cringing, abominable hyena, whining at the ashcans for another titbit from London.
I'm a firm believer in self determination. I don't see much evidence the Welsh want to take responsibility for themselves so I can imagine us in the future if the Scots and NI go having a country like the Cricket 🏏 team - officially England and Wales but people just say England most of the time.
If the Welsh did decide to move on from England I'd be surprised but have no sadness.
Wales also could not survive as a prosperous economy outside both the UK and the EU, it has no major financial services industry or oil industry for starters0 -
Indeed. Germany currently at 282 deaths per million (cf. UK = 954) according to WorldometerRobD said:
Na, they did so well in the first wave that being slightly worse than that is still very good.Andy_JS said:
Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is some increase to be honest
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1338882538530549760?s=19
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
0
This discussion has been closed.