Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

It is hard to see Starmer emulating Heath’s GE1970 performance – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,694
edited April 2022 in General
imageIt is hard to see Starmer emulating Heath’s GE1970 performance – politicalbetting.com

One of the remarkable things about British politics that is not always fully appreciated is how rare it is for a party with a working majority to be replaced by another party with a working majority. This has only happened once since WW2 – at GE1970 (the first I was able to vote in and cover professionally) when the Heath-led Tories secured a majority of 30 replacing Wilson’s Labour party which had secured a majority of 98 four years earlier at GE1970.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    dixiedean said:

    Are the middle classes more socially liberal than the working classes? It is often asserted, but I don't see much evidence. Many wealthy rural villages are stultifyingly conformist. Many poorer areas are very tolerant of other folk's peccadilloes.

    According to opinion polling, yes, although like you my own anecdotal experience is rather mixed. My impression is that middle class people tend to talk up their social liberalism while working class people do the opposite.
    Generalisations are part of the problem, but my impression is that the middle classes are more tolerant in theory, but less tolerant in practice.
    That generalisation might be problematic, but usually they work
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    Politico.com - Trumpian Conservatives Hold an ‘Emergency’ Meeting Over Russia
    At a Washington Marriott, the nationalist wing of the Republican Party wrestles with what Putin’s war means for their movement.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/02/trump-conservatives-emergency-meeting-gop-russia-00022419

    SSI - Mostly navel-gazing. But does highlight that growing split in Republican ranks is NOT between MAGA and Never-Trumpers, but rather neo-isolationists versus neo-neo-cons.
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,208
    Agreed 👍
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,194
    Fourth like Arsenal.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,526
    "Ted Heath with an Instagram account"...

    https://www.instagram.com/sir_edward_heath/?hl=en-gb
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    not everybody will what to click on the link,

    the tweet is a photo of a town in northern Ukraine, the Russians had tide the hands of some Ukrainians civilians behind there back, and then shot them. Basterds and war criminals.

    https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1510039148299751424?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1510039148299751424|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/04/02/ukrainian-troops-around-kiev-horrified-by-what-retreating-russians-left-behind-n459626

    Clearly I cant verify this, but having seen a few videos of liberated areas, I think its real.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    On topic - according to wiki just 12 MPs elected in 1970 who were NOT Labour or Conservative. Thus at peak of semi-classic two-party system in UK.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    edited April 2022
    darkage said:

    Fishing said:

    Pensfold said:

    Ukraine is fighting the Russians on our behalf. We, and other democratic countries, should devote resources to Ukraine winning as if we were in the front line.

    Besides offering them all the resources we can, I think we should offer the Ukrainian nation the George Cross for its magnificent resistance, as we did the Maltese during the Second World War. And Zelensky should get an honorary knighthood, as other friends of freedom have in the past.

    Small tokens, to be sure, and much less important than anti-tank missiles, but a sign of our admiration for their valour.
    I'm sick of virtue signalling like that.
    It would also be a bit patronising. It draws attention to the question why we are not there fighting ourselves. And the answer to that, is we are afraid of 'poking the bear' - a stance that is looking increasingly pathetic, the longer this conflict goes on.
    Well, we aren't fighting because we weren't invaded.

    But, yes, obviously we should only offer these or any other honours to the Ukrainians with the approval of their government. If they think it's empty virtue-signalling, of course we don't. But sometimes these gestures really mean something - as when the Queen ordered that the American national anthem be played after 9/11. Condi Rice said that moved her to tears. Or a poster (I think) on here said his Ukrainian relation appreciated all the signs of support from people on facebook, etc, which I had thought was empty-virtue signalling.

    Just as long as they're an addition to military and economic aid, not a replacement of it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,472
    edited April 2022
    Heath's victory is often attributed to England being knocked out of the 1970 World Cup. This year's World Cup is in November and December. Could history repeat itself, especially if Boris is cheering on Ukraine (again)?
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,764
    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,389

    On topic - according to wiki just 12 MPs elected in 1970 who were NOT Labour or Conservative. Thus at peak of semi-classic two-party system in UK.

    In those days the uup were considered tories, and there were only 12 seats in ni.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    FPT

    There are lots of these videos emerging. I am 99% sure the Russians are shooting multiple civilians, for no reason, as they retreat

    Unspeakable. We edge closer to total war
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,532
    edited April 2022
    Ted Heath was the greatest PM outside of my lifetime, his finest achievest, correctly placing Middlesbrough outside of Yorkshire.

    I fear we will never see his like again.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,389
    Leon said:

    FPT

    There are lots of these videos emerging. I am 99% sure the Russians are shooting multiple civilians, for no reason, as they retreat

    Unspeakable. We edge closer to total war

    Agreed, it's shocking.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,472
    OT (while we revisit the 1970s) someone mentioned the alternative history book, Agent Lavender, whose premise is that Harold Wilson is unmasked as a Soviet agent during the 1974 Labour government, and pays homage to the coup that never was involving Lord Mountbatten (which featured in The Crown iirc). It is entertaining enough as it namechecks almost every 1970s politician, trades unionist and Soviet leader you've heard of, but is very clunkily written in places, especially when characters make speeches.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    edited April 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    After you account for the nine Liberals it was a four seat majority (and the Tories won either 304 or 298 not 301, depending on how you count the six National Liberals).
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,472

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    Beware


    “My brother sent this to me. Town of Bucha northwest of Kyiv. The amount of dead citizens on one street alone…I just can’t even process.”

    https://twitter.com/viktoriiauah/status/1509985789404459011?s=21&t=b2xouwbwKm5zLSBNQqXiiw
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    And even worse, redrew the map of England.

    I have cousins in Shropshire who still haven't forgiven him for that.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,585
    Agree. There is no data whatever that enables you to do more than guess whether the next government will be Labour led or Tory led, but the chances of Labour gaining 126 seats without a lot of help from Scotland is virtually impossible. Less than 10% chance - I would say about 5 %.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,764
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    After you account for the nine Liberals it was a four seat majority (and the Tories won either 304 or 298 not 301, depending on how you count the six National Liberals).
    Err ... yes ... I was looking at the GB total on wiki and not UK. Sorry about that.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    FPT:

    I have never, ever understood how the French managed fool so many non-French people into thinking they are the best chefs in the world. Even within Europe, the Italian cuisine far outshines theirs. The Mediterranean/Ottoman cuisine is at least as good, if not better. And that's without getting to Chinese, Malay, Indian and Indochinese cuisines.

    French food can be exquisite, but is often just bleh.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,764

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    But that had been Wilson's policy, too, so it didn't represent a big change.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,731
    Bloody hell

    Where do the tories get their mps from?

    We need compulsory drug testing.
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Just back from a great day at the races, out in sunshine had good few winners. Plenty of beer and home with more than I started with. Brilliant day.

    Next PB meet is going to be with you at a racecourse.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,764
    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
    I’m only catching up with the hideous news out of Ukraine. I’ve been travelling for 24 hours then having my mind totally boggled to fuck today by the 13,000 year old inexplicable megalithic site of Karahan Tepe in Kurdish Turkey
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,350
    ping said:

    Bloody hell

    Where do the tories get their mps from?

    We need compulsory drug testing.

    Is it the same place that Man U get their managers?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,868
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
    I’m only catching up with the hideous news out of Ukraine. I’ve been travelling for 24 hours then having my mind totally boggled to fuck today by the 13,000 year old inexplicable megalithic site of Karahan Tepe in Kurdish Turkey
    Do tell us about it in due course - will be a pleasant change to have some nice news from the Black Sea region.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,144

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    It's notable that in those old (pre-79) election broadcasts they talk about Lab/Con majority over Con/Lab and worry less about absolute majorities.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,235
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
    I’m only catching up with the hideous news out of Ukraine. I’ve been travelling for 24 hours then having my mind totally boggled to fuck today by the 13,000 year old inexplicable megalithic site of Karahan Tepe in Kurdish Turkey
    Inexplicable? Or just not explained yet?
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    Fishing said:

    darkage said:

    Fishing said:

    Pensfold said:

    Ukraine is fighting the Russians on our behalf. We, and other democratic countries, should devote resources to Ukraine winning as if we were in the front line.

    Besides offering them all the resources we can, I think we should offer the Ukrainian nation the George Cross for its magnificent resistance, as we did the Maltese during the Second World War. And Zelensky should get an honorary knighthood, as other friends of freedom have in the past.

    Small tokens, to be sure, and much less important than anti-tank missiles, but a sign of our admiration for their valour.
    I'm sick of virtue signalling like that.
    It would also be a bit patronising. It draws attention to the question why we are not there fighting ourselves. And the answer to that, is we are afraid of 'poking the bear' - a stance that is looking increasingly pathetic, the longer this conflict goes on.
    Well, we aren't fighting because we weren't invaded.

    But, yes, obviously we should only offer these or any other honours to the Ukrainians with the approval of their government. If they think it's empty virtue-signalling, of course we don't. But sometimes these gestures really mean something - as when the Queen ordered that the American national anthem be played after 9/11. Condi Rice said that moved her to tears. Or a poster (I think) on here said his Ukrainian relation appreciated all the signs of support from people on facebook, etc, which I had thought was empty-virtue signalling.

    Just as long as they're an addition to military and economic aid, not a replacement of it.
    Funny you should say that, fishy. I was thinking the same thing. Award Ukraine the George Cross as a nation. St George is, after all, one of their patron saints.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    After you account for the nine Liberals it was a four seat majority (and the Tories won either 304 or 298 not 301, depending on how you count the six National Liberals).
    Err ... yes ... I was looking at the GB total on wiki and not UK. Sorry about that.
    Can happen to the best of us!
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,764
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    And even worse, redrew the map of England.

    I have cousins in Shropshire who still haven't forgiven him for that.
    Salop should have lost everywhere west of the A483. The clue's in the names.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

  • Options
    Looks like Prince Andrew has done another whoopsie.

    Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York has shared a series of Instagram posts written by Prince Andrew reflecting on the 40th anniversary of him leaving to serve in the Falkland War with the Royal Navy. After seeing active combat, he writes, Andrew “returned a changed man”.

    Andrew was forced to shut down his social media accounts in January after the palace announced he would lose his honorary military titles and no longer use his HRH. But despite efforts to keep him in the background, it is clear that this prince still wants to be seen and heard.

    Less than two hours after posting, the three posts have now been deleted.


    https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1510287895277494278
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,962
    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    One of those moments where you wonder how hard it would be for the Ukrainians to build nuclear weapons.

    It did occur to me the other day that the only way the Russians are going to piss off for good is if Kyiv has a few nukes pointed at Moscow.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    malcolmg said:

    Just back from a great day at the races, out in sunshine had good few winners. Plenty of beer and home with more than I started with. Brilliant day.

    Congrats. About to go out into the kitchen garden to start getting it ready for planting. Bright sunshine, but a mere 45F (8C) outside. Where is that hot Texan weather SSI was promising me?
  • Options
    I'm fairly certain Prince Andrew is a secret republican, ditto the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge given their recent tour.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    edited April 2022

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
    I’m only catching up with the hideous news out of Ukraine. I’ve been travelling for 24 hours then having my mind totally boggled to fuck today by the 13,000 year old inexplicable megalithic site of Karahan Tepe in Kurdish Turkey
    Inexplicable? Or just not explained yet?
    Close to inexplicable. We will probably never know who built this deliberately buried civilisation, which is so mind bendingly advanced for its time. Pre agriculture, pre pottery, pre writing, just hunter gatherers, yet they built shrine after shrine and temple after temple, a whole network over hundreds of square miles, some of them with exquisite planning verging on urbanism, yet also hints of sinister rituals. We are only just touching the surface of what they did. They were also obsessed with penises, so I feel an empathy across the aeons
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 786
    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    Penises or simply phallic? I suppose for the peripatetic stone dildo knapper, every problem looks like a nail, as it were.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,350
    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    One of those moments where you wonder how hard it would be for the Ukrainians to build nuclear weapons.

    It did occur to me the other day that the only way the Russians are going to piss off for good is if Kyiv has a few nukes pointed at Moscow.
    When Crimea was seized the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk spoke to the UN, partly in English and partly in Russia, making great play of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its territorial integrity.

    It sounded to me as though he was not only underlining the way Russia had broken its word, but that he was somewhat regretting his predecessors' choices.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,868
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    Penises or simply phallic? I suppose for the peripatetic stone dildo knapper, every problem looks like a nail, as it were.
    One of those occasions when one bitterly regrets the loss of most organic materials in archaeology. I have notions of those having giant woolly Time Team style knitted stripy warmers carefully drawn over them at the autumn solstice, and removed with joyful ritual at the spring solstice.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,732

    I'm fairly certain Prince Andrew is a secret republican, ditto the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge given their recent tour.

    No, he is just a bit thick and arrogant.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,868
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Pretty massive hypocaust, though, at 12' high.
  • Options
    EXCLUSIVE: Britain is pushing to arm Ukraine with anti-ship missiles to sink Russian warships and relieve coastal cities being bombarded from the sea as part of a “gear change” in the West’s approach

    Boris Johnson has told ministers he wants to supply the weapons to prevent the Russians advancing on Odesa, just as British anti-tank missiles have been used to stall President Putin’s efforts to take Kyiv

    A senior government source said: “We anticipated this mass column of tanks coming across what is a very flat expanse of landscape and that Kyiv would be taken in three days. The NLAWs [next-generation light anti-tank weapons] stopped that”

    “That bit of the war is not over but it’s parked. They’re now concentrating on the south. The next target is Odesa”

    “It’s not tanks which are going to come at Odesa. It’s ships. NLAWs don’t work against ships, so what does?

    “The PM is eager and determined to help find that. We don’t have everything they need for the next stage but we have become the default co-ordinator of other countries”

    A second source said: “The Ukrainians have been asking for lethal aid on the Black Sea. We have probably the most mature relationship with the Ukrainians of anyone... The PM is committed to helping Ukraine defend itself and he will support that need”

    Mariupol, on the coast of the Sea of Azov, has witnessed some of the bloodiest fighting of the conflict, with 5,000 people thought to have been killed

    Over the past fortnight four Russian warships are reported to have joined in a bombardment of the city that has reduced 80% of its buildings to rubble

    There are fears that Odesa, which has so far been spared Mariupol’s fate, could soon come under assault from the Russian navy in the Black Sea as the Kremlin seeks to refocus its forces on securing the east and southern coastal areas of Ukraine

    While some allies, including America, Germany and France, are said to want to wait for a provocation by Russia before providing more deadly lethal aid, Johnson has made clear that he believes it should be made available immediately

    “Boris says we don’t need another trigger,” the senior government source added. “He [Putin] has already crossed the line ... Whatever Zelensky asks for he will get, if we have it”

    Read the full story here:


    https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1510320627013541888
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,278
    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    Russians and Ukrainians will hate each other for generations after all this.

    The exact opposite of Putin's mythic dreams of one fatherland united under his glorious beneficence.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,667
    Caught out by new thread. In reply to @HYUFD:

    No I call you a fascist because you want to censor the free press for an article where the author used a word that is part of his own language but you disapprove and therefore should be banned. A typical stance of a fascist. Also because:

    - You think Russia is democratic
    - You approve of Pinochet
    - You would put down an unofficial referendum with troops
    - You would nuke a country without nuclear weapons.
    - You openly don't feel the views of a losing side in an election should be considered ignoring the respected view that Governments govern for all.

    The list goes on. Your views are that of a typical fascist and not of a Tory, which can be seen by the fact that not a single Tory here supports your views.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Yes, that is the guess. Though they are also definitely phallic

    It seems all the enclosures were - probably - lightly roofed (for shade from the burning desert sun) by wicker/wooden roofs

    In Enclose AB at Karahan Tepe (see, I’m getting technical) the great hall was supported by two central pillars 6 metres high, the main.pillars for a conical or tent like roof

    Six metres high! It would have been like a mini cathedral…… in 10,000 BC. With numerous side chapels, shrines, altars, statues in niches, leopard skins, dangling human skulls….
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    kjh said:

    Caught out by new thread. In reply to @HYUFD:

    No I call you a fascist because you want to censor the free press for an article where the author used a word that is part of his own language but you disapprove and therefore should be banned. A typical stance of a fascist. Also because:

    - You think Russia is democratic
    - You approve of Pinochet
    - You would put down an unofficial referendum with troops
    - You would nuke a country without nuclear weapons.
    - You openly don't feel the views of a losing side in an election should be considered ignoring the respected view that Governments govern for all.

    The list goes on. Your views are that of a typical fascist and not of a Tory, which can be seen by the fact that not a single Tory here supports your views.

    No.

    You call me a fascist because you are a pompous, tedious Liberal bore who now resorts to abuse against anyone who does not share their mindset!

    Thatcher herself approved of Pinochet's support in the Falklands War, the Tory UK government's official policy is to continue to refuse indyref2.

    Name me one Labour government where most Tory voters were happy with it or one Tory government where most Labour voters were happy with it?

    Despite the Tories still polling around 35% you can count the number of still Tory voting Boris supporters on here on 1 hand. That means very little. However still most of them do not call me and others like me 'fascist' like you just have!
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,278

    Ted Heath was the greatest PM outside of my lifetime, his finest achievest, correctly placing Middlesbrough outside of Yorkshire.

    I fear we will never see his like again.

    LOL. Time to replace your icon photo then? Looks like Baldwin to me.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,144
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Pretty massive hypocaust, though, at 12' high.
    Wouldn't it be a ceiling support for a cellar room?
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Scotland

    SNP 56%
    Con 17%
    Lab 13%
    Grn 4%
    Ref 3%
    LD 3%

    Propensity to cast a vote - Absolutely certain to vote (10/10):

    Scotland 67%
    London 61%
    Rest of South 50%
    Midlands and Wales 50%
    North 50%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 2,006; Fieldwork: 29-30 March 2022)

    This points to the huge challenge facing Ross, when the next election takes place. The GE2007 outcome remains the biggest Scottish general election shock in modern times.

    In the betting a SCon FM is currently rated at a 5% chance, which in my view is far too high.
  • Options
    po8crgpo8crg Posts: 23
    It's worth adding that the post-WWII period isn't unusual in this respect. It happened in 1945 (the short post-VE Day Con majority losing out to Attlee's Lab), but before that the last time was 1906, and the time before that was 1880, and before that 1874. That was the first time that it had ever happened that a single-party majority lost power in a General Election to another single-party majority.

    The only period in British history that was truly as two-party as our mythology has it is that short period from the Second Reform Act of 1867 to the split of the Irish Unionists in 1885/6 - the three general elections of 1868, 1874 and 1880. This was, of course, the period in with Gilbert and Sullivan wrote Iolanthe (1881), with the notable lines:

    Nature always does contrive
    That every boy and every gal
    That’s born into the world alive
    Is either a little Liberal
    Or else a little Conservative!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    As we drove across the desert, the chief archaeologist of the Tepes, Necmi Karul, “Oh I must show you this, we discovered it a few weeks ago”. A little Arab village where walls are casually supported by 12,000 year old megaliths and, in 1 lumber room, they found one of the oldest raised rock friezes on the planet. As you do

    This was all found in the last few WEEKS







  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,667
    @HYUFD having been away and just read the end of the last thread it is also not edifying that having got 2 things of no importance whatsoever wrong you can't admit it. You specifically said a restaurant had a Michelin star and one had to go through Essex on a trip you defined. Neither were correct. You then moved the goal posts on both.

    What is wrong with you that you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,350
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Yes, that is the guess. Though they are also definitely phallic

    It seems all the enclosures were - probably - lightly roofed (for shade from the burning desert sun) by wicker/wooden roofs

    In Enclose AB at Karahan Tepe (see, I’m getting technical) the great hall was supported by two central pillars 6 metres high, the main.pillars for a conical or tent like roof

    Six metres high! It would have been like a mini cathedral…… in 10,000 BC. With numerous side chapels, shrines, altars, statues in niches, leopard skins, dangling human skulls….
    I think your flint knapping is getting to you. The reason they are wider at the top is that there is a broader surface to put the beams on. Still seriously impressive carving for 13k years ago, mind you.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,472
    edited April 2022
    This Warburton chap. On the one hand, drugs are passé in the modern Conservative Party. But if he is forced out, might this provide an excuse for tiresome lefties to accuse icing sugar sniffers on the government side of hypocrisy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60967143
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,389
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    And even worse, redrew the map of England.

    I have cousins in Shropshire who still haven't forgiven him for that.
    Most people in Shropshire are cousins

  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,302
    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    po8crg said:

    It's worth adding that the post-WWII period isn't unusual in this respect. It happened in 1945 (the short post-VE Day Con majority losing out to Attlee's Lab), but before that the last time was 1906, and the time before that was 1880, and before that 1874. That was the first time that it had ever happened that a single-party majority lost power in a General Election to another single-party majority.

    The only period in British history that was truly as two-party as our mythology has it is that short period from the Second Reform Act of 1867 to the split of the Irish Unionists in 1885/6 - the three general elections of 1868, 1874 and 1880. This was, of course, the period in with Gilbert and Sullivan wrote Iolanthe (1881), with the notable lines:

    Nature always does contrive
    That every boy and every gal
    That’s born into the world alive
    Is either a little Liberal
    Or else a little Conservative!

    1906 is a funny one and I would be wary of using it as an example. Officially the unionist government of Balfour had a colossal majority. In practice that was split three ways between the factions led by Balfour himself, Joseph Chamberlain and Hugh Cecil. It was so split in fact that Balfour resigned even before the election was called, so technically the incumbent government of Campbell-Bannerman was a minority government.

    1945 is true - but was also a wartime election after 10 years without an election, and the winners had been in government just two months before.

    I'm comfortable therefore with OGH saying that 1970 is the only example in the twentieth century.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    Heathener said:

    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.

    More 1964, 1992 or 2010. Each general elections after the governing party had been in power for 13 years
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    This Warburton chap. On the one hand, drugs are passé in the modern Conservative Party. But if he is forced out, might this provide an excuse for tiresome lefties to accuse icing sugar sniffers on the government side of hypocrisy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60967143

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/02/inside-dutch-torture-chamber/

    Anyone who does cocaine is a complete and utter ban hammer word
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    kjh said:

    Caught out by new thread. In reply to @HYUFD:

    No I call you a fascist because you want to censor the free press for an article where the author used a word that is part of his own language but you disapprove and therefore should be banned. A typical stance of a fascist. Also because:

    - You think Russia is democratic
    - You approve of Pinochet
    - You would put down an unofficial referendum with troops
    - You would nuke a country without nuclear weapons.
    - You openly don't feel the views of a losing side in an election should be considered ignoring the respected view that Governments govern for all.

    The list goes on. Your views are that of a typical fascist and not of a Tory, which can be seen by the fact that not a single Tory here supports your views.

    That's very clever of him. How do you nuke a country without using nuclear weapons?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    kjh said:

    @HYUFD having been away and just read the end of the last thread it is also not edifying that having got 2 things of no importance whatsoever wrong you can't admit it. You specifically said a restaurant had a Michelin star and one had to go through Essex on a trip you defined. Neither were correct. You then moved the goal posts on both.

    What is wrong with you that you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?

    I really don't care, this is a politics blog not Mastermind. However I will admit I was not exactly right if that makes you happy.

    Still does not give you the right to call me a Fascist!
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,029
    edited April 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    But that had been Wilson's policy, too, so it didn't represent a big change.
    Wilson wasn’t that keen on the EU/EEC

    And some of the top of the Labour were against it. Eg Tony Benn. Hence Corbyn’s ‘lukewarmishness’.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,962
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    One of those moments where you wonder how hard it would be for the Ukrainians to build nuclear weapons.

    It did occur to me the other day that the only way the Russians are going to piss off for good is if Kyiv has a few nukes pointed at Moscow.
    When Crimea was seized the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk spoke to the UN, partly in English and partly in Russia, making great play of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its territorial integrity.

    It sounded to me as though he was not only underlining the way Russia had broken its word, but that he was somewhat regretting his predecessors' choices.
    I think that whatever happens in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation among other states is the inevitable outcome of this war.

    No other nation is going to come to your aid if the aggressor has nukes. That means there is only one viable way to defend yourself against a nuclear armed aggressor.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,302
    edited April 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.

    More 1964, 1992 or 2010. Each general elections after the governing party had been in power for 13 years
    All three saw changes of leadership prior to the elections.

    This time the Conservative MP's have chickened out and will stay with their same leader.

    So, no, not like 1964, 1992 or 2010.

    Like 1997.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,302
    IshmaelZ said:

    This Warburton chap. On the one hand, drugs are passé in the modern Conservative Party. But if he is forced out, might this provide an excuse for tiresome lefties to accuse icing sugar sniffers on the government side of hypocrisy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60967143

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/02/inside-dutch-torture-chamber/

    Anyone who does cocaine is a complete and utter ban hammer word
    Leon loves it doesn't he? So he said on here iirc.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD having been away and just read the end of the last thread it is also not edifying that having got 2 things of no importance whatsoever wrong you can't admit it. You specifically said a restaurant had a Michelin star and one had to go through Essex on a trip you defined. Neither were correct. You then moved the goal posts on both.

    What is wrong with you that you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?

    I really don't care, this is a politics blog not Mastermind. However I will admit I was not exactly right if that makes you happy.

    Still does not give you the right to call me a Fascist!
    You are not not a fascist either, though, are you? As in, you'd support fascists in some circumstances. You've already expressed admiration for Franco and Pinochet. How far would you go?
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,490
    IshmaelZ said:

    This Warburton chap. On the one hand, drugs are passé in the modern Conservative Party. But if he is forced out, might this provide an excuse for tiresome lefties to accuse icing sugar sniffers on the government side of hypocrisy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60967143

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/02/inside-dutch-torture-chamber/

    Anyone who does cocaine is a complete and utter ban hammer word
    WHat made Colombia famous,
    has made a prick out of you.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9lkCYkViwc
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    One of those moments where you wonder how hard it would be for the Ukrainians to build nuclear weapons.

    It did occur to me the other day that the only way the Russians are going to piss off for good is if Kyiv has a few nukes pointed at Moscow.
    When Crimea was seized the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk spoke to the UN, partly in English and partly in Russia, making great play of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its territorial integrity.

    It sounded to me as though he was not only underlining the way Russia had broken its word, but that he was somewhat regretting his predecessors' choices.
    I think that whatever happens in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation among other states is the inevitable outcome of this war.

    No other nation is going to come to your aid if the aggressor has nukes. That means there is only one viable way to defend yourself against a nuclear armed aggressor.
    Agreed.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.

    More 1964, 1992 or 2010. Each general elections after the governing party had been in power for 13 years
    All three saw changes of leadership prior to the elections.

    This time the Conservative MP's have chickened out and will stay with their same leader.

    So, no, not like 1964, 1992 or 2010.

    Like 1997.
    You think going from Blair to Brown was a positive change for Labour? Home was also hardly a great election winner either compared to Macmillan who won a majority of 100 in 1959.

    Major was maybe more electable than Thatcher by late 1990 but by 1997 he led the Tories to their worst defeat since Wellington in 1832.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,962
    IshmaelZ said:

    This Warburton chap. On the one hand, drugs are passé in the modern Conservative Party. But if he is forced out, might this provide an excuse for tiresome lefties to accuse icing sugar sniffers on the government side of hypocrisy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60967143

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/02/inside-dutch-torture-chamber/

    Anyone who does cocaine is a complete and utter ban hammer word
    Create prohibition, get gangsters.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    edited April 2022
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD having been away and just read the end of the last thread it is also not edifying that having got 2 things of no importance whatsoever wrong you can't admit it. You specifically said a restaurant had a Michelin star and one had to go through Essex on a trip you defined. Neither were correct. You then moved the goal posts on both.

    What is wrong with you that you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?

    I really don't care, this is a politics blog not Mastermind. However I will admit I was not exactly right if that makes you happy.

    Still does not give you the right to call me a Fascist!
    You are not not a fascist either, though, are you? As in, you'd support fascists in some circumstances. You've already expressed admiration for Franco and Pinochet. How far would you go?
    Churchill also was an ally of Stalin in WW2 did not make him a Communist.

    There is no doubt Thatcher saw Pinochet's support as vital in helping to win the Falklands War, did not make her a Fascist either
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,532
    edited April 2022

    Ted Heath was the greatest PM outside of my lifetime, his finest achievest, correctly placing Middlesbrough outside of Yorkshire.

    I fear we will never see his like again.

    LOL. Time to replace your icon photo then? Looks like Baldwin to me.
    Baldwin was also awesome.

    Like all good Tories he helped oust a Monarch. #HeirToCromwell
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,302
    edited April 2022
    kjh said:

    you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?

    It's a problem on here generally though from what I've seen HY does take it to another level.

    Admitting you are wrong, as every single person is and should be sometimes (it's a betting site ffs!!!), would help make the place slightly happier. Even more so if people accepted a sincere mea culpa moment.

    And, yes, I got the invasion totally wrong - whatever the reasons.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,490
    edited April 2022

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 1970 election was won by a combination of Powell supporters in the Midlands switching to the Tories and after rising inflation and rising unemployment under Wilson's Labour government.

    The rising cost of living might help Labour but still hard to see them winning a majority minus their former Scottish seats. Even if Starmer did win as Heath did in 1970 it would not necessarily be of great encouragement to him. 4 years later Wilson returned to power and defeated him in the February and October 1974 general elections.

    Heath like Starmer was a dull technocrat, Boris more of a charismatic showman like Wilson

    Heath did little to change the political climate. Wilson's 1964 victory (317 seats to 301) was unemphatic but it was, by contrast, revolutionary. If Starmer got over the line with a 16-seat majority he'd be chuffed.
    Well, he did take us into Europe.
    And even worse, redrew the map of England.

    I have cousins in Shropshire who still haven't forgiven him for that.
    Most people in Shropshire are cousins

    Interestingly, Shropshire was one of 3 counties (along with Cornwall and the Isle of Wight) which was untouched in the great redraw of 1974. Along with, I think, Wolverhampton.

    By 'untouched' I'm referring only to county council/county borough borders here.

    I've just remembered - I used to have a 1974 copy of Whittakers almanac which explained in painstaking detail how the redrawing was done. It was one of my most treasure posessions. I wonder what happened to it?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    I fear they're not being quite so discriminating.
    I’m only catching up with the hideous news out of Ukraine. I’ve been travelling for 24 hours then having my mind totally boggled to fuck today by the 13,000 year old inexplicable megalithic site of Karahan Tepe in Kurdish Turkey
    1. Does Karahan Tepe really shape up, from flint-nappers perspective?

    2. Did you see that Sarah Palin is back?!? As 51st candidate in very special election to represent 49th state in US House? And that one of her rivals is Santa Claus, a Democratic Socialist who is on North Pole, Alaska city council.

    Fill in the blank: "I saw Sarah Palin _________ing Santa Claus . . ."
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Yes, that is the guess. Though they are also definitely phallic

    It seems all the enclosures were - probably - lightly roofed (for shade from the burning desert sun) by wicker/wooden roofs

    In Enclose AB at Karahan Tepe (see, I’m getting technical) the great hall was supported by two central pillars 6 metres high, the main.pillars for a conical or tent like roof

    Six metres high! It would have been like a mini cathedral…… in 10,000 BC. With numerous side chapels, shrines, altars, statues in niches, leopard skins, dangling human skulls….
    That animal heads coming out of walls thing is so specifically a psychedelic drug indicator. I note psilocybe semilanceata was found in Turkey for the first time 4 years ago...
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    I'm fairly certain Prince Andrew is a secret republican, ditto the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge given their recent tour.

    Gute Arbeit.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    edited April 2022
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.

    More 1964, 1992 or 2010. Each general elections after the governing party had been in power for 13 years
    All three saw changes of leadership prior to the elections.

    This time the Conservative MP's have chickened out and will stay with their same leader.

    So, no, not like 1964, 1992 or 2010.

    Like 1997.
    Although in 1963 Macmillan had initially intended to stay on, and there still remains some doubt as to exactly why he resigned.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,667
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Caught out by new thread. In reply to @HYUFD:

    No I call you a fascist because you want to censor the free press for an article where the author used a word that is part of his own language but you disapprove and therefore should be banned. A typical stance of a fascist. Also because:

    - You think Russia is democratic
    - You approve of Pinochet
    - You would put down an unofficial referendum with troops
    - You would nuke a country without nuclear weapons.
    - You openly don't feel the views of a losing side in an election should be considered ignoring the respected view that Governments govern for all.

    The list goes on. Your views are that of a typical fascist and not of a Tory, which can be seen by the fact that not a single Tory here supports your views.

    No.

    You call me a fascist because you are a pompous, tedious Liberal bore who now resorts to abuse against anyone who does not share their mindset!

    Thatcher herself approved of Pinochet's support in the Falklands War, the Tory UK government's official policy is to continue to refuse indyref2.

    Name me one Labour government where most Tory voters were happy with it or one Tory government where most Labour voters were happy with it?

    Despite the Tories still polling around 35% you can count the number of still Tory voting Boris supporters on here on 1 hand. That means very little. However still most of them do not call me and others like me 'fascist' like you just have!
    Firstly others have.

    Re your comments on Thatcher and Indy ref I agree.

    It was necessary in the Falkland war, that doesn't mean you have to support Pinochet. Did you? Your comments the other day implied you did.

    Re Indy ref there is a difference between not supporting a referendum and threatening troops.

    I don't call you a fascist for supporting Johnson, I call you a fascist because of your beliefs. Boris is not a fascist, but you are.

    You are also exceptionally authoritarian, another trait.

    Does it not cross your mind that your views are different to every Tory on this site. I am closer to all of them than you.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,302
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    This thread is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true that John Major's majority began to whittle away between 1992-7, the fact is that he started out with a majority of 21 and Tony Blair turned that around from a majority of 21 to the Conservatives to a landslide Labour victory with its largest ever victory: a majority of 179.

    So, yes, turnarounds do happen.

    They are much more likely to occur after long one-party rules when 'time for change' becomes a meme, especially when sleaze and corruption have crept in.

    By 1997 the Tories had been in power continuously for 18 years. By 2024 they will have been in power for 14 years.

    I suggest that 1997 is a much better metric by which to judge 2024 and that Mike is, on this rare occasion, wrong.

    More 1964, 1992 or 2010. Each general elections after the governing party had been in power for 13 years
    All three saw changes of leadership prior to the elections.

    This time the Conservative MP's have chickened out and will stay with their same leader.

    So, no, not like 1964, 1992 or 2010.

    Like 1997.
    Although in 1963 Macmillan had initially intended to stay on, and there still remains some doubt as to exactly why he resigned.
    Oh but The Crown says it was ill-health ... so it must have been ;)

    You're quite right.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    These look like supports for a long vanished wooden floor to me.
    Yes, that is the guess. Though they are also definitely phallic

    It seems all the enclosures were - probably - lightly roofed (for shade from the burning desert sun) by wicker/wooden roofs

    In Enclose AB at Karahan Tepe (see, I’m getting technical) the great hall was supported by two central pillars 6 metres high, the main.pillars for a conical or tent like roof

    Six metres high! It would have been like a mini cathedral…… in 10,000 BC. With numerous side chapels, shrines, altars, statues in niches, leopard skins, dangling human skulls….
    I think your flint knapping is getting to you. The reason they are wider at the top is that there is a broader surface to put the beams on. Still seriously impressive carving for 13k years ago, mind you.
    No, honestly, you’re totally wrong. Every archaeologist working on this accepts that they are phallic. I was there. I spoke to them. This is also accepted by every major scholar on the subject

    We know this because there are identical shaped pillars with phallic forms which are much shorter, and definitely weren’t used for roofs

    Check the rockfrieze I just posted. In the little village. The tiny man is clutching his cock. The Tepe people were obsessed with penises

    Tho I suppose an obscure anonymous lawyer from Scotland might have more insight than every expert in this field, so I might give you their email addresses so you can set them right


    https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2017/08/09/a-short-note-on-a-new-figurine-type-from-goebekli-tepe/

    “The other important characteristic of the depiction is the prominent erect phallus. Göbekli Tepe´s iconography is generally nearly exclusively male (e.g. Dietrich and Notroff 2015.85), and the phallus features prominently in several depictions of animals and humans. For example, a headless ithyphallic body is depicted on Pillar 43 amongst birds, snakes and a large scorpion (Schmidt 2006). Although the central pillars of the large enclosures are clearly marked as human through the depiction of arms, hands, and in the case of Enclosure D also items of clothing, their sex is not indicated. An erect phallus however is a prominent feature of the foxes depicted on several of the central pillars. There are also a few phallus sculptures from the site (e.g. Schmidt 1999.9, Plate 2/3-4).”
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    A Sean and drugs thread. Makes you nostalgic.
  • Options
    Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737

    Scotland

    SNP 56%
    Con 17%
    Lab 13%
    Grn 4%
    Ref 3%
    LD 3%

    Propensity to cast a vote - Absolutely certain to vote (10/10):

    Scotland 67%
    London 61%
    Rest of South 50%
    Midlands and Wales 50%
    North 50%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 2,006; Fieldwork: 29-30 March 2022)

    This points to the huge challenge facing Ross, when the next election takes place. The GE2007 outcome remains the biggest Scottish general election shock in modern times.

    In the betting a SCon FM is currently rated at a 5% chance, which in my view is far too high.

    I agree, I would say the Tories have a ceiling of about 35-40 seats (even if they gain some extra constituency seats next time in South and NE regions). The only way the SNP can be removed from office would be for the SNP and Greens to lose their majority, Slab to come at least a joint (distant) 2nd in MSPs and then SCons and SLDs to vote Sarwar as FM although that is only perhaps a 15-25% chance.

    I still think the local elections could be quite interesting and Slab needs to come 2nd at least in seats and ideally win in Glasgow to change the narrative although I also expect the SCon vote to be surprisingly resilient outside of Edinburgh.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097

    I'm fairly certain Prince Andrew is a secret republican, ditto the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge given their recent tour.

    The Cambridges recent tour was fine apart from republicans driving an agenda.

    Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now so what he thinks on anything is of little relevance given he has now effectively been consigned to royal exile
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    edited April 2022
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    The rumour is the Russians, as they retreat, are murdering every male Ukrainian age 16-60, so they will no longer be a threat. When the Russians return

    Srebrenica? Worse? My god

    One of those moments where you wonder how hard it would be for the Ukrainians to build nuclear weapons.

    It did occur to me the other day that the only way the Russians are going to piss off for good is if Kyiv has a few nukes pointed at Moscow.
    When Crimea was seized the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk spoke to the UN, partly in English and partly in Russia, making great play of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its territorial integrity.

    It sounded to me as though he was not only underlining the way Russia had broken its word, but that he was somewhat regretting his predecessors' choices.
    I think that whatever happens in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation among other states is the inevitable outcome of this war.

    No other nation is going to come to your aid if the aggressor has nukes. That means there is only one viable way to defend yourself against a nuclear armed aggressor.
    The other thing to say though is that rather a lot of mid-size nations will have noticed that you are rather less likely to be invaded to start with if you have nukes or are in close alliance with those who have them. Ukraine has been invaded, Lithuania has not been. Another compelling reason for getting them or, in the case of Finland and Sweden, cosying up to those who have them.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097

    Ted Heath was the greatest PM outside of my lifetime, his finest achievest, correctly placing Middlesbrough outside of Yorkshire.

    I fear we will never see his like again.

    LOL. Time to replace your icon photo then? Looks like Baldwin to me.
    Baldwin was also awesome.

    Like all good Tories he helped oust a Monarch. #HeirToCromwell
    He replaced a Monarch with his brother, a far better Monarch to be our head of state in WW2
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,667
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @HYUFD having been away and just read the end of the last thread it is also not edifying that having got 2 things of no importance whatsoever wrong you can't admit it. You specifically said a restaurant had a Michelin star and one had to go through Essex on a trip you defined. Neither were correct. You then moved the goal posts on both.

    What is wrong with you that you can never admit you are wrong even on trivia?

    I really don't care, this is a politics blog not Mastermind. However I will admit I was not exactly right if that makes you happy.

    Still does not give you the right to call me a Fascist!
    You are not not a fascist either, though, are you? As in, you'd support fascists in some circumstances. You've already expressed admiration for Franco and Pinochet. How far would you go?
    Churchill also was an ally of Stalin in WW2 did not make him a Communist.

    There is no doubt Thatcher saw Pinochet's support as vital in helping to win the Falklands War, did not make her a Fascist either
    She wasn't, but her views were considerably different to yours
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,867
    DavidL said:

    ping said:

    Bloody hell

    Where do the tories get their mps from?

    We need compulsory drug testing.

    Is it the same place that Man U get their managers?
    Meetings of the 1922 Committee must resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Ted Heath was the greatest PM outside of my lifetime, his finest achievest, correctly placing Middlesbrough outside of Yorkshire.

    I fear we will never see his like again.

    LOL. Time to replace your icon photo then? Looks like Baldwin to me.
    Baldwin was also awesome.

    Like all good Tories he helped oust a Monarch. #HeirToCromwell
    #HeirToCromwell is an interesting hashtag, given Cromwell, O was so furiously opposed to government by dynasty, he thought the appropriate successor to Cromwell, O was by a staggering coincidence Cromwell, R. What are the odds of that?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,396
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    I found the 12 foot high, 13,000 year old penises carved from the living bedrock, stared at by a giant head with a snake’s neck

    I’m trying to think of recent photos of a bunch of inanimate pointless pricks grouped together being stared at by a giant dickhead……



    That’s a brilliant analogy, in the circs. All the pathetic stony faced dicks. The one solitary menacing fat head on a snake overseeing them

    Bravo
This discussion has been closed.