Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Tory party is the party for traitors – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    kle4 said:

    Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.
    A quick scan of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parliaments_of_England suggests about 4 years, but I could easily have missed a longer one...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353

    You simply know God is on your side.
    Changes His mind a lot, sadly.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,450

    Which is an absurdity.
    I agree. In any other country he'd be in prison for treason.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,849
    kle4 said:

    The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.

    Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
    All power systems require sustaining by myths and fabricated legitimisation, of which 'divine right' is just one. But for most of us it is necessary and desirable to have an authority structure in place (see Thomas Hobbes for the most basic and brutal arguments as to why).

    Looking at systems from before the very modern forms of democracy developed (forms which I think are magically wonderful, possessing their own myths and legends) you have to compare systems with the alternatives. In that light some sort of 'divine right' comes out not too badly, especially when ameliorated by occasional assassination, revolution and usurpation.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,877
    Pagan2 said:


    You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personally
    So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?

    I have a bridge here, lightly used.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,427
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories were 2nd in Hampstead and Highgate at the GE, the LDs 4th, behind the Greens even if ahead of Reform who were 5th.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001265

    I would expect a narrow Labour hold if there is a by election
    Greens in second place, I suspect.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,683

    So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?

    I have a bridge here, lightly used.
    At least you have your stuff back not just a crime number, I also trust the criminals I know far more than the police to be honest
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,030
    edited January 14
    Nigelb said:

    West from Appomattox (Heather Cox Richardson) is a good book on the fifty years after the Civil War.
    Broad sweep, with an interesting unifying theme.

    Oldie, but good (it won a Pulitzer) is Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform.
    Takes you from 1890 - 1940.

    Caro’s LBJ biographies, of course.

    Anyone else care to chime in with their US history picks ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    edited January 14
    kle4 said:

    Nice Corbyn reference, but your ending makes the very point you refute, in that there were indeed more extreme people for the time.

    My recollection is the parliamentarians as a whole were not super popular though.

    Edit: Then again, you thought the purge of the Long Parliament was inconsequential on the issue of whether there was 'parliamentary approval' for execution of the king, so I'll take the thoughts with a grain of salt, or wait for Starmer to purge all non-Labour MPs and see it argued 'parliament' approved things.
    No it does not, in religious terms Cromwell was fanatical hardline Puritan evangelical, middle of the road was C of E or Lutheran at that time with Roman Catholicism the other extreme. King Charles I was more middle of the road religiously than Cromwell and even though his push for rule by divine right lost him his head, Cromwell effectively was a dictator by the time he died, hence the restoration with Charles II
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,877
    edited January 14
    Pagan2 said:

    At least you have your stuff back not just a crime number, I also trust the criminals I know far more than the police to be honest
    As long as it doesn't encourage further burglarising, can't blame you.

    Having said that, we had a whole army of plods chasing one perp around the neighbourhood last week. No helicopter strangely.

    No idea what for but it must have been something worthwhile.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,098
    kle4 said:

    Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.
    Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.

    This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.





  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,283
    What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?

    Why is he so terrible at this?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,473

    As long as it doesn't encourage further burglarising, can't blame you.

    Having said that, we had a whole army of plods chasing one perp around the neighbourhood last week. No helicopter strangely.

    No idea what for but it must have been something worthwhile.
    Apparently he posted something about cheese on his socials and it upset someone with lactose intolerance.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,806

    What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?

    Why is he so terrible at this?

    The warnings were there through his years as LOTO...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    edited January 14

    A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after all
    No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.

    Leaving aside Trump's felony conviction, plenty of able politicians have had criminal records. George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons.

    Most senior French politicians of the 1990s and 2000s ended up with suspended sentences like Chirac or Sarkozy (as did Berlusconi in Italy) or even jail time in Fillon's case and Mitterand's son in law was involved in arms dealing whether he knew or not
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,981
    Cookie said:

    I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
    The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,545

    What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?

    Why is he so terrible at this?

    It takes months to reprogram his brain to speak different words. In the same we he kept on calling Rishi Sunak the Prime Minister when his 'despatch box' module was active, his 'resignation handling' module is programmed to come out with platitudes like that regardless of the individual case.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,427
    HYUFD said:

    No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.

    Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
    I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    rcs1000 said:

    Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.

    This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.

    Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,966
    Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582

    It contains these interesting statistics:

    "Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."

    I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:

    "On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."

    Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,098
    viewcode said:

    The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
    That is an excellent summary.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582

    It contains these interesting statistics:

    "Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."

    I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:

    "On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."

    Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.

    Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.

    #pedanticbetting.com
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582

    It contains these interesting statistics:

    "Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."

    I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:

    "On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."

    Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.

    Well in 2011 voters had a chance to vote for AV, they only have themselves to blame they stuck with FPTP and governing parties elected on minority votes
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129

    SKS had terrible taste in friends
    Indeed.

    He used to hang out with Jeremy Corbyn, for example.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600

    I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.
    Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn't
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,840
    viewcode said:

    The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
    I think the big boost to the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the Fifties and Sixties was the Cold War and Decolonisation.

    Increasingly Communist propaganda in the newly independent world was about the injustice of racism, and the finger pointed strongly at the Jim Crow states of the USA.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,101
    Is that Civil War film any good?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,098
    ydoethur said:

    Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.
    Nah: it was merely the United Kingdom of England then - Mercia plus Wessex plus Northumbria, etc.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,573
    ydoethur said:

    Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.

    #pedanticbetting.com
    Thank goodness he's not just using GPT to spit out copy. Which he's not. That would be lazy reader-fodder.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,427
    HYUFD said:

    Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn't
    You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    edited January 14

    You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.
    Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    rcs1000 said:

    Nah: it was merely the United Kingdom of England then - Mercia plus Wessex plus Northumbria, etc.
    I see.

    If we meant the whole area covered by the United Kingdom now, of course, we could include the lack of an Estates of Scotland from 1294 to 1315.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    HYUFD said:

    Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?
    Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,840
    ydoethur said:

    Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?
    Also at different times with different restrictions.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,981

    Is that Civil War film any good?

    From the bits and pieces on YouTube I quite like it. Some Americans were upset by the implausible California -Texas alliance, and others were disappointed by the meandering plot - it's basically a series of vignettes about how War Is Bad. But I liked it for the fact that it has Apache helos and Abrams tanks shooting at a White House sentry post. The lack of partisan politics (the President's party is not disclosed) was not well received by many, but I think it was the only way it could go if you wanted to make a profit, which it did.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,381
    rcs1000 said:

    Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.

    This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.





    Medieval governments were usually solvent in peacetime. War was when expenditure went far beyond revenues, and they needed Parliamentary agreement to new taxes.

    But, few really disputed that the king was the chief executive, and that, broadly, he should get his way, provided that he addressed the grievances that Parliament put before him.


  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,573
    kle4 said:

    Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.
    I'm pretty good at spending money, and I call parliaments all sorts of things.

    Does.... that make me the King?

    Hurrah!

    More spending!
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,573
    ydoethur said:

    Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?
    However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,849
    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582

    It contains these interesting statistics:

    "Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."

    I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:

    "On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."

    Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.

    May I make a disquieting suggestion: Once you have 'One Person One Vote' it isn't the job of leaders to solve or heal the problems of democracy. That's the job of the voters.

    (We recently had a referendum on slightly changing FPTP to soften its sharpest edge and give a slightly better chance to persistent newbies. We said said 'No. We shall stick where we are').
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    ydoethur said:

    Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?
    By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    ohnotnow said:

    However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.
    I think he's more into crumpet in his office, although I understand that tends to be quite brief too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    HYUFD said:

    By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!
    Inter campaign.

    Moreover, it was once. Johnson's was all the bloody time.

    What was more disgraceful still was the claim from Michael Fabricating C*** that everyone else was doing it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,683
    ohnotnow said:

    However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.
    Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,252
    C'mon you mighty Reds!

    The Ghost of Brian Clough is stalking the City Ground. Fifty years since he joined.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    HYUFD said:

    Well in 2011 voters had a chance to vote for AV, they only have themselves to blame they stuck with FPTP and governing parties elected on minority votes
    AV would still have given Starmer a landslide.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    ydoethur said:

    Inter campaign.

    Moreover, it was once. Johnson's was all the bloody time.

    What was more disgraceful still was the claim from Michael Fabricating C*** that everyone else was doing it.
    And once again we have all these arguments which completely miss the damn point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129
    Driver said:

    And once again we have all these arguments which completely miss the damn point.
    Are you new here? :smile:
  • C'mon you mighty Reds!

    The Ghost of Brian Clough is stalking the City Ground. Fifty years since he joined.

    Liverpool’s passing is as bad as I have seen it for a long time
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,766
    ohnotnow said:

    Thank goodness he's not just using GPT to spit out copy. Which he's not. That would be lazy reader-fodder.
    Why does any idiot think a "strong government" is a good thing ffs! Naïve idiots. Please Lord, give us weak governments wthout big majorities!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178
    Sean_F said:

    Medieval governments were usually solvent in peacetime. War was when expenditure went far beyond revenues, and they needed Parliamentary agreement to new taxes.

    But, few really disputed that the king was the chief executive, and that, broadly, he should get his way, provided that he addressed the grievances that Parliament put before him.


    Don't give Trump any more ideas.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,129

    Why does any idiot think a "strong government" is a good thing ffs! Naïve idiots. Please Lord, give us weak governments wthout big majorities!
    We've been halfway there for six years.

    We've had the weak governments.

    They've had big majorities, though.

    And May perhaps suggests weak governments without big majorities have their drawbacks.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,871
    edited January 14
    Pagan2 said:

    Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.
    Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.

    Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.

    You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.

    And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.
  • Finally Liverpool equalise 1-1
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178
    Nigelb said:

    Oldie, but good (it won a Pulitzer) is Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform.
    Takes you from 1890 - 1940.

    Caro’s LBJ biographies, of course.

    Anyone else care to chime in with their US history picks ?
    Behold America - Churchwell on 1920s/30s America - really interesting echos of MAGA and so on.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,683

    Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.

    Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.

    You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.

    And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.
    I have no truck with boris and his ilk either.....what pisses me off is all mp's exempt them from the rules that govern the rest of us

    for example I am living in devon and working in london as is my local mp

    however if my company pays for a flat for me up there and my travel costs I get taxed as a benefit in kind...my mp gets it tax free. Fuck him and fuck the lot of them
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,399

    Meh, but I expect that isn't always the case and it's a Wokey/DEI take.

    It's been used to justify every single one coming down which I don't agree with and, were I an American, would piss me off.
    I am sure it isn't always true, but I think this gives you some idea of how it is mostly true:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_monuments_and_memorials#/media/File:Confederate_monuments,_schools_and_other_iconography_established_by_year.png

    And some of them are f***ing big.

    As I said I had the same view as you until I found this out. For me statues should stay even if not politically correct. I would rather see a statue to a slave owner with an explanation than take down the statue, but then you find out the motives behind most of them and it changes ones mind.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,647
    Starmer was positively android-like when asked by Chris Mason about RR. Just switched on a monologue about fiscal rules or something. It was really, really weird.

    We know politicians divert and obfuscate but this was bizarre.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,737
    Pagan2 said:

    I have no truck with boris and his ilk either.....what pisses me off is all mp's exempt them from the rules that govern the rest of us

    for example I am living in devon and working in london as is my local mp

    however if my company pays for a flat for me up there and my travel costs I get taxed as a benefit in kind...my mp gets it tax free. Fuck him and fuck the lot of them
    To be fair, I think the MP would say their office is in Devon and they get “sent” to London to work. If your office was in Devon, your work could pay to put you up in London when it sent you there.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,545
    TOPPING said:

    Starmer was positively android-like when asked by Chris Mason about RR. Just switched on a monologue about fiscal rules or something. It was really, really weird.

    We know politicians divert and obfuscate but this was bizarre.

    He’s grieving for his lost Chagos deal.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,683
    biggles said:

    To be fair, I think the MP would say their office is in Devon and they get “sent” to London to work. If your office was in Devon, your work could pay to put you up in London when it sent you there.
    My local mp probably spends more time "working" in london I think if anyone has a claim to have a devon office its me as I spent two days in london last year
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,888
    Found my winner of the 'bonkers headline of the day' award: "Lazio falconer sacked for sharing explicit photos of prosthetic penis"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c30dp1r73e4o
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    Driver said:

    AV would still have given Starmer a landslide.
    Maybe then, it certainly wouldn't now
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,647
    I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.

    Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,399
    @Casino_Royale I have only been dipping in and out tonight but I vaguely saw you ask about the Civil War film and was it any good. if you are referring to the one released last year then yes it is very good. In fact I thought it superb. However you need a strong stomach. It was very disturbing. I thought about it for weeks after and had to be scraped off the ceiling of the cinema a few times

    The strong stomach was not so because of the violence, although there is quite a bit, but the nature of the film which is truly terrifying (plus I did jump a few times). They were very careful to not create a scenario that could be mistaken for Trump (California and Texas were on the same side), but boy I expect everyone was thinking Trump as they watched it.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,978
    Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,516
    TOPPING said:

    I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.

    Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.

    I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178
    geoffw said:

    Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool

    Ed Milliband persuaded him to throw his hat in the ring and go for St Pancras seat iirc.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178
    Siddiq quits on Kate 'All Clear Day'.

    Am I more cynical than a jaded flint knapper to think this was the day to try to bury the news as far as rightwing MSM front pages are concerned?

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,978

    Ed Milliband persuaded him to throw his hat in the ring and go for St Pancras seat iirc.

    When Ed was leader? A notable judgement call by the silver tongued whisperer then

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.

    Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
    That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178

    He’s grieving for his lost Chagos deal.
    Reeves just found some more headroom though.
  • What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?

    Why is he so terrible at this?

    He never said that to Louise Haigh. In the scheme of things, her conviction may well be more forgivable than what Siddiq is involved with.

    Just that he likes Siddiq, as he is such a bad judge of character. As Michael Crick says, issues with Siddiq were pointed out all the way back to 2017 when it was clear the type of person she was.

    Starmer is weak, based on his own arguments.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,163
    geoffw said:

    Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool

    The suggestion was that he fancied being AG for a few years - but then stuff happened.

    Looking at his early career, he obviously does have a moral compass and sense of how things should be in the world; you can understand why politics might be appealing. And having led a significant organisation within the Justice world, that proximity to politics and experience of administration must have had an effect too.

    But there's all the difference in the world between being a government law officer, or head of a pretty technocratic department, and party leader or PM.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    geoffw said:

    Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool

    Like Rishi he thought that because he had a brilliant career outside politics, in law in his case, in finance in Rishi's, that automatically meant he would be good at politics. It doesn't.

    Cameron was a far better politician than either, even if the peak of his non political career was Corporate Affairs Director at Carlton TV
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,552

    I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.
    As statues are heavily concentrated in totalitarian regimes, I sense you are technically right that most statues are not there to give you the warm fuzzies. Bow down and commemorate your biggest bastards hard and long you woke, democratic softies.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,840
    geoffw said:

    When Ed was leader? A notable judgement call by the silver tongued whisperer then

    Though as I pointed out last night, to turn around a Labour Party from it's worst defeat in years to a massive majority and 200 year record defeat for the Tories demonstrates real capability.

    Sure, you can only beat what the opposition put up, but nonetheless a major triumph.

    Only the most complacent of PB Tories are counting him out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,030

    I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.
    That’s an extremely naive view of the civil war statues.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,647
    edited January 14

    I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.
    So where do I find the statue of Hitler.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,545
    TOPPING said:

    .

    So where do I find the statue of Hitler.
    There must be one in India.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,399
    edited January 14

    I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.
    I would generally agree with that. But that isn't the case with most of the Confederate statues which was the subject of the discussion. They were mostly put up in the Jim Crow era to intimidate blacks not to commemorate historically significant events or people. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the civil war. That was just an excuse. Just look at the graph I linked to in an earlier post. It was plain deliberate intimidation of the 'superior' whites over the 'inferior' blacks.

    It is no coincidence they were put up then and not earlier or later.

    Genuine civil war statues I have no issue with in the context of the time (significant person or event).

    PS Here is the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_monuments_and_memorials#/media/File:Confederate_monuments,_schools_and_other_iconography_established_by_year.png
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,893
    a
    Cookie said:

    I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)
    Start with the works of William Faulkner…

    Balance with Booker T. Washington?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,893
    viewcode said:

    Gap year.
    You’ve got to put in a year, pretending to be on the shop floor, before they give you the foreman’s job…
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    Carnyx said:

    That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.
    Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell did
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,734
    HYUFD said:

    Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell did
    Judging by surveys taken during Covid that’s less centrist dad, more boomer grandad.
  • Foxy said:

    I think the big boost to the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the Fifties and Sixties was the Cold War and Decolonisation.

    Increasingly Communist propaganda in the newly independent world was about the injustice of racism, and the finger pointed strongly at the Jim Crow states of the USA.
    If they did, they were quite right to do so - and the advantage of the western free world over communist states is that we can take such criticism and adapt and evolve to being a better form of ourselves by dealing with such injustices rather than denying them.

    Our ability to be self-critical, and accept criticism from others, is our greatest strength not our weakness.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,893
    kle4 said:

    The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.

    Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
    No, monarchs ruled by Divine Right, In the medieval view.

    If you overthrew and executed the King, that proved that God wanted to You to replace him.

    Treason against God, never prospers….

    Ruling without “advice” from the Great and The Good was a bit weird. Sign that you might be not God’s choice, frankly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,893
    kle4 said:

    Changes His mind a lot, sadly.
    Youguv rarely polls in Heaven…..
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,164
    "No 10 refuses to rule out emergency budget - as cabinet ministers warned 'things could get very difficult'"

    https://news.sky.com/story/politics-starmer-ai-labour-tulip-siddiq-tories-latest-live-12593360
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,139
    geoffw said:

    Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool

    I'd guess that most people go into politics for one of two reasons, which can broadly be labelled as bragging rights or megalomania.

    The bragging rights people are doing it to get one over someone else. See, for example, Boris Johnson's drive to get one over Cameron. I also suspected this was part of Sunak's motivation - it was the only thing his billionaire father-in-law couldn't buy. Definitely could be Starmer's motivation, the whole episode with the freebies shows that he's more status-obsessed than I'd previously appreciated.

    The megalomaniacs are principally doing it because they don't think anyone else can, can be trusted, or is willing or able to do it. Who else is going to do it? You got that sense from Blair and Brown. It's certainly plausible that, as DPP, Starmer had a close enough view of how dysfunctional much of government could be that he felt someone had to sort it out, and, if not him, who?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,840

    Youguv rarely polls in Heaven…..
    9 out of 10 angels support absolute autocracy and monarchy, after all that is the regime in heaven.

    The other 1 is Satan, who has a good working relationship with the big guy, with them doing a bit of punting on poor old Job.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,734
    edited January 14
    Foxy said:

    9 out of 10 angels support absolute autocracy and monarchy, after all that is the regime in heaven.

    The other 1 is Satan, who has a good working relationship with the big guy, with them doing a bit of punting on poor old Job.
    Yeah but it’s a “Singapore-style” absolute autocracy.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,139
    HYUFD said:

    Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell did
    Cromwell didn't ban Christmas.

    Cromwell was pally with the Independents, who were happy to let different congregations worship as they wished, provided they weren't non-Christians, or - gasp! - Papists.

    It was the Presbyterians in Parliament who banned Christmas, before Cromwell became Lord Protector, and they definitely didn't like Independents. They wanted to impose a uniform Presbyterian Kirk on England.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,030
    TOPPING said:

    So where do I find the statue of Hitler.
    Or even Rommel.

    Or German military bases named after Paulus…
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,139
    On Trump's tariffs. There are conflicting reports.

    On the one hand, we hear from the premier of Alberta, that they expect the tariffs to apply across the board, to everything, no exceptions.

    On the other hand, there are many who earnestly believe they will be targeted only on strategic industries, and leave something like Warhammer models without an additional tariff.

    And in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.

    Where do we think this is headed?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,694

    in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.

    If you pay money to avoid a tariff, isn't that a tariff...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,178
    Andy_JS said:

    "No 10 refuses to rule out emergency budget - as cabinet ministers warned 'things could get very difficult'"

    https://news.sky.com/story/politics-starmer-ai-labour-tulip-siddiq-tories-latest-live-12593360

    March would only be an "emergency" budget because Reeves, with great flourish, announced that there would be only one full fiscal event per year and that would be in Autumn.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,164
    edited January 14

    I'd guess that most people go into politics for one of two reasons, which can broadly be labelled as bragging rights or megalomania.

    The bragging rights people are doing it to get one over someone else. See, for example, Boris Johnson's drive to get one over Cameron. I also suspected this was part of Sunak's motivation - it was the only thing his billionaire father-in-law couldn't buy. Definitely could be Starmer's motivation, the whole episode with the freebies shows that he's more status-obsessed than I'd previously appreciated.

    The megalomaniacs are principally doing it because they don't think anyone else can, can be trusted, or is willing or able to do it. Who else is going to do it? You got that sense from Blair and Brown. It's certainly plausible that, as DPP, Starmer had a close enough view of how dysfunctional much of government could be that he felt someone had to sort it out, and, if not him, who?
    A bit cynical. I assume that most people go into politics because they want to improve the country.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,886

    On Trump's tariffs. There are conflicting reports.

    On the one hand, we hear from the premier of Alberta, that they expect the tariffs to apply across the board, to everything, no exceptions.

    On the other hand, there are many who earnestly believe they will be targeted only on strategic industries, and leave something like Warhammer models without an additional tariff.

    And in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.

    Where do we think this is headed?

    The last one.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,139
    Andy_JS said:

    A bit cynical. I assume that most people go into politics because they want to improve the country.
    We all want to improve the country, Andy. Of course we do. You'd have to be a nihilist or a sociopath not to want to.

    But most of us don't go into politics, and most of those who do go into politics don't get anywhere near the top.

    So the relevant question is what marks those people out from everyone else. And I reckon it's either megalomania or status.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    ydoethur said:

    Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.
    Few Englanders know the difference
This discussion has been closed.