Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The LAB MP in CON General ElectionTarget Number 1 knocks on my door – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 2 in General
imageThe LAB MP in CON General ElectionTarget Number 1 knocks on my door – politicalbetting.com

At about 4pm on election night in December 2019 I decided to call it a day and try to get some sleep. Before I did I checked if my own result in Bedford had come in and the BBC website suggested the count was still going on but that this was a “99% certain Tory gain” according to the exit poll.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,960
    Test
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,744
    After nine days of Olympic competition in Tokyo, Great Britain has 32 medals including 10 golds. The number of medals is down on both Rio 2016 (38) and London 2012 (37) but the next two days should bring Tokyo closer again. Rio and London were Great Britain's best Olympics since 1908 but Team GB look like falling short of those heights this time around as the 10 golds won so far fall well short of London's 16 and Rio's 15 at this stage.

    -------------

    Team GB's 32 medals are now eight ahead of the number our pre-Olympic Virtual Medal Table forecast had at this stage. We have therefore adjusted our projected British medal total upwards to 60, including 16 gold medals as the number of golds is also two ahead of schedule.At this stage, it looks like Great Britain could finish fourth on total medals, ahead of host nation Japan. A few more gold medals will be required to finish that high on the gold-ordered table though. The current Gracenote forecast of 16 for Great Britain would almost certainly mean fifth place on the final medal table.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,744
    Excitement in the 1500m, favourite went down on final lap and had to put the afterburners on to catch-up to qualify.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 702
    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Any time France or Germany needed a special helping hand, even when it was against agreed aims or rules, the EU jumped to appreciate their position. The same luxury was never provided to the UK. I have always thought the sign that most indicated the UK would never be appreciated in the EU were the bilateral French-German summits held to agree common goals before every EU summit. The UK was always going to be an afterthought. That is true for every other nation in the EU beyond the central two, but it was never going to be tolerable for a power as big as the UK.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    edited August 2
    Aslan said:

    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Any time France or Germany needed a special helping hand, even when it was against agreed aims or rules, the EU jumped to appreciate their position. The same luxury was never provided to the UK. I have always thought the sign that most indicated the UK would never be appreciated in the EU were the bilateral French-German summits held to agree common goals before every EU summit. The UK was always going to be an afterthought. That is true for every other nation in the EU beyond the central two, but it was never going to be tolerable for a power as big as the UK.
    With our various opt outs and special deals and outside of the Euro we already had the most favourable position of any EU member.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    Until the last election, Bedford was top of the list of "swing bellwethers" for the previous 3 general elections. I need to update this list to take account of GE2019.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11T6XLQh2ss-Ul9UjG8TzJCvhEFMp0VmsbR8KbSZ_FL0/edit#gid=0
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    Excitement in the 1500m, favourite went down on final lap and had to put the afterburners on to catch-up to qualify.

    Alf Tupper: the Tough of the Track.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    edited August 2
    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,744
    The Jamaican 100m bronze medallist is out of the 200m after slowing down early before the line!

    That laughing you can hear, is the other Jamaican 100m medallists.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Brexit, though, was never really about specific policy issues of the EU (with the possible exception of Freedom of Movement), it was the fact that the UK has never been signed up to "ever closer union" (which is embedded in the heart of the EU).

    The UK's political and legal systems are adverserial in nature, rather than driven by consensus. Our whole systems of criminal law look nothing like the continent's.

    We've never fully bought into the whole EU thing, because the countries of the EU looked nothing like us, in terms of political systems, in terms of the importance of individual rights, or even in terms of FPTP vs proportional representation etc.

    Simply, we're not like them. If you try and force British political systems into the European Union, you will get nothing but trouble. We were always an appalling fit for the EU.

    All this stuff about "oh, if they'd only listened it wouldn't have happened" is utter bullshit. Brexit happened because the British and Continental systems of law and government are fundamentally incompatible. And the Global Financial Crisis and Eurozone crisis, which led to a stream of immigrants across the border forced us to acknowledge this.

    We were never going to be a part of "the project". And that's fine. Indeed, it would have been about 100x better if we'd recognised this earlier, but hey, better late than never.

    What we shouldn't do is to pretend that - just because we're not meant to be together - everything they do is wrong. Really, the EU (and their individual constituent countries) do plenty that we could learn from.

    The French tax system does an amazing job of encouraging birth rates to remain at replacenent levels. The German system of secondary and tertiary education is much more sensibly organised than ours. The EU has done an amazing job of opening up their markets to imports from sub-Saharan Africa, that does the rest of the world to shame. And, yes, they've also turned the CAP from the worst agricultural subsidy system in the world, to one that is embasssingly average.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,744
    The International Olympic Committee is investigating Sunday's podium protest by the American shot putter Raven Saunders.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    The issue is the CAP is optimised for French farmers who have very specific issues due to Napoleonic inheritance laws.

    In the case of Blair he was promised reform for giving up the rebate. The reform never materialised and the EU shrugged
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


    The Telegraph profiles Ben Elliott. Read the paper to find out who he is related to, or friends with. Oh, and he went to Eton but after the Prime Minister (and the other Prime Minister).

    'Mr Access All Areas' has transformed Tory party coffers but left series of scandals in his wake
    Under Ben Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super-rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Amersi ... along with his Russian-born partner, has given £750,000 to the Conservative Party since 2017

    Mr Elliot, 45, is the common link, the ultimate networker who is close friends with the prime minister. One of Mr Johnson’s first acts on being elected Tory party leader in July 2019 was to make Mr Elliot its co-chairman.


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Elliot was in overall charge of a Tory fundraising dinner that enabled Richard Desmond to sit next to Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, and lobby him over a planning development that in another era would have ended with the Cabinet Minister’s resignation.

    [My emphasis – the usual rules don't apply under Boris's hegemony.]

    Then at the turn of the year, it emerged Mr Elliot was embroiled in the scandal over the £200,000 refurbishment of the prime minister’s Downing Street flat, paid for initially by Tory party donors, and for which Mr Johnson eventually footed the bill.

    [Massive snippage]

    Under Mr Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever - even if the Conservative party insists policy and donations are not linked.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/mr-access-areas-has-transformed-tory-party-coffers-left-series/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    edited August 2

    Test

    Was it really 4pm when you called it a night/day ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632
    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    Off topic, but if you (not you, Aslan) disagree with someone then you should say so, not hide behind the anonymity of the "off topic" flag.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    One thing you didn’t tell us, Mike - what was your impression of him ?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    rcs1000 said:

    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally

    Then left before the problems kicked in
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Some people don't live there either
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    edited August 2
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Vettel disqualified. Rather sad for Aston Martin, and for him. Not enough fuel could be removed from the tank for testing. I wonder if a faulty sensor has cost them 18 points.

    Edited extra bit: but not yet. Apparently the team's appeal means they still get the points. For now.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMedlandF1/status/1421950594672209930
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,915

    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


    The Telegraph profiles Ben Elliott. Read the paper to find out who he is related to, or friends with. Oh, and he went to Eton but after the Prime Minister (and the other Prime Minister).

    'Mr Access All Areas' has transformed Tory party coffers but left series of scandals in his wake
    Under Ben Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super-rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Amersi ... along with his Russian-born partner, has given £750,000 to the Conservative Party since 2017

    Mr Elliot, 45, is the common link, the ultimate networker who is close friends with the prime minister. One of Mr Johnson’s first acts on being elected Tory party leader in July 2019 was to make Mr Elliot its co-chairman.


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Elliot was in overall charge of a Tory fundraising dinner that enabled Richard Desmond to sit next to Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, and lobby him over a planning development that in another era would have ended with the Cabinet Minister’s resignation.

    [My emphasis – the usual rules don't apply under Boris's hegemony.]

    Then at the turn of the year, it emerged Mr Elliot was embroiled in the scandal over the £200,000 refurbishment of the prime minister’s Downing Street flat, paid for initially by Tory party donors, and for which Mr Johnson eventually footed the bill.

    [Massive snippage]

    Under Mr Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever - even if the Conservative party insists policy and donations are not linked.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/mr-access-areas-has-transformed-tory-party-coffers-left-series/

    Lovely to see the establishment elite laid so low post-Brexit.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    Lovely to see the establishment elite laid so low post-Brexit.

    Take Back Control...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632
    Scott_xP said:

    It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Some people don't live there either
    Naughty ;)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    edited August 2
    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community.

    Perhaps living abroad you have missed the rise of ALBA...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632
    Scott_xP said:

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community.

    Perhaps living abroad you have missed the rise of ALBA...
    Rise and fall, or do the still have MPs?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Scott_xP said:

    It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Some people don't live there either
    Wings over Stockholm
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Scott_xP said:

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community.

    Perhaps living abroad you have missed the rise of ALBA...
    Perhaps, being so keen to play the man and not the ball, you failed to read what I wrote: “… we are part of a much wider Yes community“.

    Scott, you should be grateful that I live in Sweden. If I lived in Scotland I wouldn’t be wasting my time on this obscure blog. I’d be doing something useful, like knocking doors*! 😊

    (*Covid permitting, of course.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    RobD said:

    Rise and fall, or do the still have MPs?

    Still part of the big happy YES family.

    Oh, wait...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    we are part of a much wider Yes community“.

    That's the point. There is no "wider Yes community". There are competing Indy factions.

    You really think Nippy and Eck are on the same team?

    You have been away too long...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community.

    Perhaps living abroad you have missed the rise of ALBA...
    Rise and fall, or do the still have MPs?
    Yes, two, and several councillors. But no MSPs.

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19479535.alex-salmonds-alba-party-welcomes-6-000th-member-65-year-snp-loyal-quits/

    (Moria is an old colleague of mine from my Glasgow Kelvin days.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    It's often easy to forget that full Brexit hasn't even been inflicted on the country yet. Masses more red tape to come...

    No wonder leading Brexiters are now claiming the 'benefits' will be enjoyed in half a century or more, long after they're dead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/11/uk-forced-to-delay-import-checks-on-eu-goods-by-six-months-2022-border-post-not-ready



    The real tragedy of Brexit is the resources that will be squandered trying to hide from the public what an epic failure it has been.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    The issue is the CAP is optimised for French farmers who have very specific issues due to Napoleonic inheritance laws.

    In the case of Blair he was promised reform for giving up the rebate. The reform never materialised and the EU shrugged
    The French are net contributors to CAP last I checked a few years ago.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Good morning everybody.

    Not what you might call sweetness and light here today, is it?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    edited August 2

    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


    The Telegraph profiles Ben Elliott. Read the paper to find out who he is related to, or friends with. Oh, and he went to Eton but after the Prime Minister (and the other Prime Minister).

    'Mr Access All Areas' has transformed Tory party coffers but left series of scandals in his wake
    Under Ben Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super-rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Amersi ... along with his Russian-born partner, has given £750,000 to the Conservative Party since 2017

    Mr Elliot, 45, is the common link, the ultimate networker who is close friends with the prime minister. One of Mr Johnson’s first acts on being elected Tory party leader in July 2019 was to make Mr Elliot its co-chairman.


    [massive snippage]

    Mr Elliot was in overall charge of a Tory fundraising dinner that enabled Richard Desmond to sit next to Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, and lobby him over a planning development that in another era would have ended with the Cabinet Minister’s resignation.

    [My emphasis – the usual rules don't apply under Boris's hegemony.]

    Then at the turn of the year, it emerged Mr Elliot was embroiled in the scandal over the £200,000 refurbishment of the prime minister’s Downing Street flat, paid for initially by Tory party donors, and for which Mr Johnson eventually footed the bill.

    [Massive snippage]

    Under Mr Elliot’s stewardship the potential for super rich donors to influence the prime minister appears greater than ever - even if the Conservative party insists policy and donations are not linked.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/mr-access-areas-has-transformed-tory-party-coffers-left-series/

    Lovely to see the establishment elite laid so low post-Brexit.

    I see Churchills' grandson is being threatened with legal action for standing up for UK interests by the Russian linked funders of the Tories and our last 3 PMs, including the Churchill wannabee but never will be.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Scott_xP said:

    we are part of a much wider Yes community“.

    That's the point. There is no "wider Yes community". There are competing Indy factions.

    You really think Nippy and Eck are on the same team?

    You have been away too long...
    Wishful thinking Scott.

    As you well know, when push comes to shove, the Unionist parties cooperate: SCon, SLab, SLD, Farage’s latest vehicle, Galloway’s latest vehicle, the Orange Order, BNP, Britain First, the SDL, UKIP. You are all part of the same team with the same goal.

    It’s the same for us: the SNP, Greens, Alba, Labour for Independence, Business for Scotland, SCND, Women for Independence, AOUB, Believe in Scotland etc.

    Yes, just like Con, Lab and LD, we have our falling outs, but come the big day, we will work our guts out for each other, and for our country.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Nigelb said:

    One thing you didn’t tell us, Mike - what was your impression of him ?

    That’s what I was wondering too! All very well telling us what the MP was up to, but surely interesting to get the constituent’s perspective?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638

    Good morning everybody.

    Not what you might call sweetness and light here today, is it?

    Morning OKC. You’re right. Makes me belatedly nostalgic for the discussion of how to drive from Oxford to Cambridge.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    Turns out there won't be any medal races in the sailing today... in fact, there won't be any sailing at all.

    Today's action has been postponed to Tuesday. It's just not windy enough at the Enoshima Yachting Harbour.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457
    Telegraph reporting that Sunak is "mulling" breaking the triple lock for one year only.

    Not sure this is news? He has been mulling this for months hasn't he?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    DougSeal said:

    Good morning everybody.

    Not what you might call sweetness and light here today, is it?

    Morning OKC. You’re right. Makes me belatedly nostalgic for the discussion of how to drive from Oxford to Cambridge.
    Thanks Mr S. I wonder, does 'Scotsman with a grievance vs ray of sunshine' apply?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Scott_xP said:

    It's often easy to forget that full Brexit hasn't even been inflicted on the country yet. Masses more red tape to come...

    No wonder leading Brexiters are now claiming the 'benefits' will be enjoyed in half a century or more, long after they're dead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/11/uk-forced-to-delay-import-checks-on-eu-goods-by-six-months-2022-border-post-not-ready

    The real tragedy of Brexit is the resources that will be squandered trying to hide from the public what an epic failure it has been.

    Don’t worry Scott, the truth will out.

    I’m an optimist. The good guys always win in the end, and you, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, are one of the good guys! Love and peace man. Hugs from across the North Sea (which we sometimes call ’Västerhavet’ - the Western Sea).

    (Was that sweet and light enough for you OldKingCole?)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    It’ll work as well as would sugared marmite.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Telegraph reporting that Sunak is "mulling" breaking the triple lock for one year only.

    Not sure this is news? He has been mulling this for months hasn't he?

    Well, if he isn't, he should have been.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279

    DougSeal said:

    Good morning everybody.

    Not what you might call sweetness and light here today, is it?

    Morning OKC. You’re right. Makes me belatedly nostalgic for the discussion of how to drive from Oxford to Cambridge.
    Thanks Mr S. I wonder, does 'Scotsman with a grievance vs ray of sunshine' apply?
    Mr Wodehouse. Fantastic author. A truly great Englishman.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    DougSeal said:

    Good morning everybody.

    Not what you might call sweetness and light here today, is it?

    Morning OKC. You’re right. Makes me belatedly nostalgic for the discussion of how to drive from Oxford to Cambridge.
    Wait 50 years and you can catch a train.

    It will take that long to overcome the NIMBYs en route given some dull twat at the DfT flogged part of the track bed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    IanB2 said:

    Turns out there won't be any medal races in the sailing today... in fact, there won't be any sailing at all.

    Today's action has been postponed to Tuesday. It's just not windy enough at the Enoshima Yachting Harbour.

    Where’s Boris Johnson when you actually need him?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Scott_xP said:

    It's often easy to forget that full Brexit hasn't even been inflicted on the country yet. Masses more red tape to come...

    No wonder leading Brexiters are now claiming the 'benefits' will be enjoyed in half a century or more, long after they're dead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/11/uk-forced-to-delay-import-checks-on-eu-goods-by-six-months-2022-border-post-not-ready

    The real tragedy of Brexit is the resources that will be squandered trying to hide from the public what an epic failure it has been.

    Don’t worry Scott, the truth will out.

    I’m an optimist. The good guys always win in the end, and you, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, are one of the good guys! Love and peace man. Hugs from across the North Sea (which we sometimes call ’Västerhavet’ - the Western Sea).

    (Was that sweet and light enough for you OldKingCole?)
    Indeed; the trouble is the end is sometimes a long way away. Off topic, done some DNA tests and it appears that both my wife and I have some Swedish antecedents, within the last 300 or so years.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    IanB2 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    It’ll work as well as would sugared marmite.
    Why is England so determined to remove every vestige of Englishness and try so hard to be America? Yes, America is a great place, but so is England. I just wish you guys would have more self-respect.

    (For the avoidance of doubt, I consider this ‘The Hundred’ thing to be truly awful “American rubbish”, as my mum says.)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    Telegraph reporting that Sunak is "mulling" breaking the triple lock for one year only.

    Not sure this is news? He has been mulling this for months hasn't he?

    Campaigning not news. Creating a point of differentiation vs Johnson.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    Campaigning not news. Creating a point of differentiation vs Johnson.

    ...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279

    Scott_xP said:

    It's often easy to forget that full Brexit hasn't even been inflicted on the country yet. Masses more red tape to come...

    No wonder leading Brexiters are now claiming the 'benefits' will be enjoyed in half a century or more, long after they're dead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/11/uk-forced-to-delay-import-checks-on-eu-goods-by-six-months-2022-border-post-not-ready

    The real tragedy of Brexit is the resources that will be squandered trying to hide from the public what an epic failure it has been.

    Don’t worry Scott, the truth will out.

    I’m an optimist. The good guys always win in the end, and you, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, are one of the good guys! Love and peace man. Hugs from across the North Sea (which we sometimes call ’Västerhavet’ - the Western Sea).

    (Was that sweet and light enough for you OldKingCole?)
    Indeed; the trouble is the end is sometimes a long way away. Off topic, done some DNA tests and it appears that both my wife and I have some Swedish antecedents, within the last 300 or so years.
    Unsurprising, if you have any sort of East Coast connections?

    I’m a bit of an amateur expert on the topic of English and Scottish connections with Scandinavia, the Baltic and Russia. They are broad and deep, going back all the way to the bronze age.

    To give you just one example, Sweden was very heavily involved in smuggling tea into eastern Scotland and England during the 18th century. Lots of surreptitious boat crossings, hidden storerooms and complex logistics.

    Then take the various herring booms and the free movement of workers involved in that industry.

    Or the foundation of Gothenburg by the Dutch, Swedes, Germans and Scots (in order of importance).

    Or the large number of Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers who travelled eastwards to spread the good word.

    Or the transatlantic emigration routes via Scandinavia-Hull-rail-Liverpool-New York.

    That’s just a tiny taste.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Brexit, though, was never really about specific policy issues of the EU (with the possible exception of Freedom of Movement), it was the fact that the UK has never been signed up to "ever closer union" (which is embedded in the heart of the EU).

    The UK's political and legal systems are adverserial in nature, rather than driven by consensus. Our whole systems of criminal law look nothing like the continent's.

    We've never fully bought into the whole EU thing, because the countries of the EU looked nothing like us, in terms of political systems, in terms of the importance of individual rights, or even in terms of FPTP vs proportional representation etc.

    Simply, we're not like them. If you try and force British political systems into the European Union, you will get nothing but trouble. We were always an appalling fit for the EU.

    All this stuff about "oh, if they'd only listened it wouldn't have happened" is utter bullshit. Brexit happened because the British and Continental systems of law and government are fundamentally incompatible. And the Global Financial Crisis and Eurozone crisis, which led to a stream of immigrants across the border forced us to acknowledge this.

    We were never going to be a part of "the project". And that's fine. Indeed, it would have been about 100x better if we'd recognised this earlier, but hey, better late than never.

    What we shouldn't do is to pretend that - just because we're not meant to be together - everything they do is wrong. Really, the EU (and their individual constituent countries) do plenty that we could learn from.

    The French tax system does an amazing job of encouraging birth rates to remain at replacenent levels. The German system of secondary and tertiary education is much more sensibly organised than ours. The EU has done an amazing job of opening up their markets to imports from sub-Saharan Africa, that does the rest of the world to shame. And, yes, they've also turned the CAP from the worst agricultural subsidy system in the world, to one that is embasssingly average.
    Very good post @rcs1000. I would add one thing that I mentioned last might, namely the UK’s social welfare / health safety net, which is entirely different from the EU. A system free at the point of use with no questions asked is never going to be able to cope well when the influx of several millions of people in a short amount of time.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    I was watching The Hundred last night and I heard Chinaman mentioned. I thought that had been banned for other reasons!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
    You would hate the poetry of Edward Edwin Foot.

    Here’s one example:

    https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/01/31/vide-infra/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,747
    edited August 2
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-58029042

    Plans for a £700m "world-class" film and TV studios facility in the UK have been announced by a Hollywood studio.

    The owners of Sunset Studios in Los Angeles and an investment firm have bought a 91-acre site in Hertfordshire for £120m.

    The companies anticipated it would "contribute £300m annually to the local economy" and could create up to 4,500 jobs.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Scott_xP said:

    It's often easy to forget that full Brexit hasn't even been inflicted on the country yet. Masses more red tape to come...

    No wonder leading Brexiters are now claiming the 'benefits' will be enjoyed in half a century or more, long after they're dead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/11/uk-forced-to-delay-import-checks-on-eu-goods-by-six-months-2022-border-post-not-ready

    The real tragedy of Brexit is the resources that will be squandered trying to hide from the public what an epic failure it has been.

    Don’t worry Scott, the truth will out.

    I’m an optimist. The good guys always win in the end, and you, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, are one of the good guys! Love and peace man. Hugs from across the North Sea (which we sometimes call ’Västerhavet’ - the Western Sea).

    (Was that sweet and light enough for you OldKingCole?)
    Indeed; the trouble is the end is sometimes a long way away. Off topic, done some DNA tests and it appears that both my wife and I have some Swedish antecedents, within the last 300 or so years.
    Unsurprising, if you have any sort of East Coast connections?

    I’m a bit of an amateur expert on the topic of English and Scottish connections with Scandinavia, the Baltic and Russia. They are broad and deep, going back all the way to the bronze age.

    To give you just one example, Sweden was very heavily involved in smuggling tea into eastern Scotland and England during the 18th century. Lots of surreptitious boat crossings, hidden storerooms and complex logistics.

    Then take the various herring booms and the free movement of workers involved in that industry.

    Or the foundation of Gothenburg by the Dutch, Swedes, Germans and Scots (in order of importance).

    Or the large number of Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc ministers who travelled eastwards to spread the good word.

    Or the transatlantic emigration routes via Scandinavia-Hull-rail-Liverpool-New York.

    That’s just a tiny taste.
    Thanks for that. Interesting thoughts. Neither of us has an East Cost connections, nor, so far as I have so found, with the fishing industry.
    Fascinated though, by the tea-smuggling. Around, I suppose, the time of the Boston Tea Party, and taxes on tea.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
    You would hate the poetry of Edward Edwin Foot.

    Here’s one example:

    https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/01/31/vide-infra/
    On first glance, I mistakenly read that as Edwin Poots I thought you are damn right I would hate his poetry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited August 2
    Certainly hard working, well known, regularly campaigning MPs can get a personal vote as Yasin clearly had to some extent in 2019 relative to Labour nationally.

    However remember Bedford was also only narrowly Leave, 51% to 53% across England, so less of a surprise the main swing was to the LDs not the Tories there
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    IanB2 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    It’ll work as well as would sugared marmite.
    Now you've suggested it, it will be on the shelves within a year, almost inevitably.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,624

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
    On the other hand some words appear to need explanation / correction. My favourite today is "enormity".

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited August 2

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,624
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    Feeding the troll.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    I think the last part is just a little simplistic, Hyufd. Alba had nothing to do with Scottish independence and everything to do with Salmond and Sturgeon’s personal animus.

    Obviously he couldn’t *say* that, so pressure for SindyII provided a convenient pretext, but surely nobody actually believed him?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited August 2

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    In the past maybe but Unionists have become more effective at campaigning where needed, as shown in May where it was Unionist targeted campaigning and tactical voting which ensured Dumbarton, Eastwood and Aberdeenshire West kept Unionist MSPs, which proved pivotal in denying the SNP an overall majority
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    The Germans have just smashed the world record (set by GB in Rio) in the women's team persuit.

    Laura Kenny and co are up against it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    Interesting

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58052378

    Short version - no COVID found on surfaces or in air samples in major UK stations or London underground.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,843
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Brexit, though, was never really about specific policy issues of the EU (with the possible exception of Freedom of Movement), it was the fact that the UK has never been signed up to "ever closer union" (which is embedded in the heart of the EU).

    The UK's political and legal systems are adverserial in nature, rather than driven by consensus. Our whole systems of criminal law look nothing like the continent's.

    We've never fully bought into the whole EU thing, because the countries of the EU looked nothing like us, in terms of political systems, in terms of the importance of individual rights, or even in terms of FPTP vs proportional representation etc.

    Simply, we're not like them. If you try and force British political systems into the European Union, you will get nothing but trouble. We were always an appalling fit for the EU.

    All this stuff about "oh, if they'd only listened it wouldn't have happened" is utter bullshit. Brexit happened because the British and Continental systems of law and government are fundamentally incompatible. And the Global Financial Crisis and Eurozone crisis, which led to a stream of immigrants across the border forced us to acknowledge this.

    We were never going to be a part of "the project". And that's fine. Indeed, it would have been about 100x better if we'd recognised this earlier, but hey, better late than never.

    What we shouldn't do is to pretend that - just because we're not meant to be together - everything they do is wrong. Really, the EU (and their individual constituent countries) do plenty that we could learn from.

    The French tax system does an amazing job of encouraging birth rates to remain at replacenent levels. The German system of secondary and tertiary education is much more sensibly organised than ours. The EU has done an amazing job of opening up their markets to imports from sub-Saharan Africa, that does the rest of the world to shame. And, yes, they've also turned the CAP from the worst agricultural subsidy system in the world, to one that is embasssingly average.
    With various parts of the UK establishment:

    1) Thinking that it would be good if the UK became 'more European'
    2) Thinking that the EU would become more like the UK
    3) In denial about the differences and EverCloserUnion
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,739
    tlg86 said:

    The Germans have just smashed the world record (set by GB in Rio) in the women's team persuit.

    Laura Kenny and co are up against it.

    One imagines that the GB team has been privately breaking that record too, just holding it back for the final rather than qualifying. The question will be to what extent. Hopefully they can do it or I fear it will be near misses on the track.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    I think the last part is just a little simplistic, Hyufd. Alba had nothing to do with Scottish independence and everything to do with Salmond and Sturgeon’s personal animus.

    Obviously he couldn’t *say* that, so pressure for SindyII provided a convenient pretext, but surely nobody actually believed him?
    That Alba was founded partly as a Salmond revenge vehicle is undeniable.

    The fact that he gathered a measure of support (and defectors) from the SNP suggests that either he has alot of personal pull, and/or there were a number of people unhappy at the rate of progress to independence. As it says on the tin....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    I think the last part is just a little simplistic, Hyufd. Alba had nothing to do with Scottish independence and everything to do with Salmond and Sturgeon’s personal animus.

    Obviously he couldn’t *say* that, so pressure for SindyII provided a convenient pretext, but surely nobody actually believed him?
    Paging Malc.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Germans have just smashed the world record (set by GB in Rio) in the women's team persuit.

    Laura Kenny and co are up against it.

    One imagines that the GB team has been privately breaking that record too, just holding it back for the final rather than qualifying. The question will be to what extent. Hopefully they can do it or I fear it will be near misses on the track.
    Sounds like they've all turned up with new bikes - let's hope our tech is better than ze Germans'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    I think the last part is just a little simplistic, Hyufd. Alba had nothing to do with Scottish independence and everything to do with Salmond and Sturgeon’s personal animus.

    Obviously he couldn’t *say* that, so pressure for SindyII provided a convenient pretext, but surely nobody actually believed him?
    Partly but not entirely, Salmond has in the past floated the possibility of a Catalan style unilateral declaration of independence, something Sturgeon firmly ruled out.

    Salmond was always more focused on using the SNP as a vehicle for independence, Sturgeon has been more focused on using the SNP as a vehicle for power over Scottish domestic politics with independence just used as a GOTV tool

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland-independence-vote/alex-salmond-airs-idea-of-unilateral-declaration-of-independence-for-scotland-30605317.html
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I've just posted something very similar but less eloquently put on the other thread.
    Had the UK political class been prepared to compromise with the electorate at any point in the 25 years leading up to 2016, there would have been no Brexit.
    Brexit, though, was never really about specific policy issues of the EU (with the possible exception of Freedom of Movement), it was the fact that the UK has never been signed up to "ever closer union" (which is embedded in the heart of the EU).

    The UK's political and legal systems are adverserial in nature, rather than driven by consensus. Our whole systems of criminal law look nothing like the continent's.

    We've never fully bought into the whole EU thing, because the countries of the EU looked nothing like us, in terms of political systems, in terms of the importance of individual rights, or even in terms of FPTP vs proportional representation etc.

    Simply, we're not like them. If you try and force British political systems into the European Union, you will get nothing but trouble. We were always an appalling fit for the EU.

    All this stuff about "oh, if they'd only listened it wouldn't have happened" is utter bullshit. Brexit happened because the British and Continental systems of law and government are fundamentally incompatible. And the Global Financial Crisis and Eurozone crisis, which led to a stream of immigrants across the border forced us to acknowledge this.

    We were never going to be a part of "the project". And that's fine. Indeed, it would have been about 100x better if we'd recognised this earlier, but hey, better late than never.

    What we shouldn't do is to pretend that - just because we're not meant to be together - everything they do is wrong. Really, the EU (and their individual constituent countries) do plenty that we could learn from.

    The French tax system does an amazing job of encouraging birth rates to remain at replacenent levels. The German system of secondary and tertiary education is much more sensibly organised than ours. The EU has done an amazing job of opening up their markets to imports from sub-Saharan Africa, that does the rest of the world to shame. And, yes, they've also turned the CAP from the worst agricultural subsidy system in the world, to one that is embasssingly average.
    With various parts of the UK establishment:

    1) Thinking that it would be good if the UK became 'more European'
    2) Thinking that the EU would become more like the UK
    3) In denial about the differences and EverCloserUnion
    It is interesting to think about how the Greek establishment thought that the EU would smoothly remove all of Greece's problems and turn Greece into a smaller version of Germany (or similar). Without them having to make any painful decisions.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,995
    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
    Our family gave up on tv years ago. We still regularly use the same screen, but very rarely switch on the tv box beside it. In fact, I think I’m the only member of the family who ever uses that remote control.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Germans have just smashed the world record (set by GB in Rio) in the women's team persuit.

    Laura Kenny and co are up against it.

    One imagines that the GB team has been privately breaking that record too, just holding it back for the final rather than qualifying. The question will be to what extent. Hopefully they can do it or I fear it will be near misses on the track.
    For the moment that's the great unknown especially as at the last championship Germany and the Netherlands beat us in a lot of events.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    I have remembered the word they stopped to explain. They were talking about flooding and referenced the word ' culvert'.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,995
    On topic, canvassing is critical. Some parties / candidates are brilliant at it, other appalling. Yes @StuartDickson rightly points to the appalling contact rates that Labour had in Scotland - they literally had no clue they were about to get wiped out because they'd long-since stopped talking to voters.

    I've seen that more locally when I was on Teesside. Labour grandees disinterested in canvassing because these are "heartland" wards that will always be Labour (until they weren't), Tories telling voters on the doorstep that of course they should be voting Tory with that house and a BMW on the drive.

    What canvassing can't cure is having views divergent from the public. Locally their 2019 canvas / leaflet was as comprehensive as 2015 with massively different local election results. Far more Tory boots on the ground in my old seat (thanks to their Roadtrip initiative) in the 2017 general they lost vs far fewer in 2019 which they won.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,174
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    Your disappointment at not having an excuse to send in the (barely operational) tanks is palpable. Still, no need for an AFV to truncheon a granny if push comes to shove.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    I have remembered the word they stopped to explain. They were talking about flooding and referenced the word ' culvert'.
    It reminds me of how they reported that the head of Latymer school in London was utterly opposed to the terrible idea of Free Schools.

    One of which was to open, literally next door to his school.

    So man running business charging premium prices for education, opposes operation providing product for free, next to his outlet....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476

    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...
    Brexit very frequently amounted to tilting at windmills
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,571

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    I have remembered the word they stopped to explain. They were talking about flooding and referenced the word ' culvert'.
    Conduit is a good word, not least for anagrams.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    geoffw said:

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    Appealing to.the lowest common denominator.
    I note that on TV they are now stopping to explain words(not cricket ones) that most would consider straightforward. I hit the off switch when that happens. I am watching less and less TV as so little appeals.
    On the other hand some words appear to need explanation / correction. My favourite today is "enormity".

    What is the difference between the number of words someone of above average IQ would use compared to someone below average IQ? I know doctors and lawyers rank among the highest due to terminology in their professions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    On the other hand:

    I'm not into cricket at all. Whilst I find such terms endearing and funny, they're also a sort-of barrier to watching.

    All sports have their own lingo and terminology. It's just that in many sports - e.g. motor sports - it's fairly obvious who is in the lead, even to a first-time watcher. Cricket (and things like baseball) are slow and ponderous sports, and it can be far from obvious what the heck is going on to a first-time watcher.

    So yes, it may help attract new viewers. Would it help attract me? Frankly, yes. If I had any spare time at the moment...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...
    Brexit very frequently amounted to tilting at windmills
    Part of the problem was that politicians used the EU as the excuse. Can't do x because EU. Remainers did this as often as Brexiters. They thought that they were using a moral argument..... but it made the EU sound like the problem.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,995

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
  • IshmaelZ said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    I have remembered the word they stopped to explain. They were talking about flooding and referenced the word ' culvert'.
    Conduit is a good word, not least for anagrams.
    I do... know what you mean
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    For the first 3,000 metres our girls looked brilliant, but they really did go out too fast. Can they beat the Germans? I don't think so.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Vettel disqualified. Rather sad for Aston Martin, and for him. Not enough fuel could be removed from the tank for testing. I wonder if a faulty sensor has cost them 18 points.

    Edited extra bit: but not yet. Apparently the team's appeal means they still get the points. For now.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMedlandF1/status/1421950594672209930

    Got to feel a little sorry for them if they get the penalty.

    On another matter: did you hear Russell's 'What can I do to help Nicky (Latifi)?' It was an odd one, because whilst he was on the radio to Williams, in reality he was speaking to Mercedes: "I'll be a brilliant Number 2 driver to Hamilton." ;)
This discussion has been closed.