House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II
To be known as The House of Bastards.
Titles would run in reverse complexity
5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard 4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard 3) The Right Honourable Bastard 2) Right Bastard 1) Bastard
I always chuckle to remember Denis Skinner being rebuked by the Speaker for calling an MP a creep, and substituting “honourable and learned creep.”
On the Bodyline cricket tour in the 30's the English captain stormed into the Australian dressing room to demand to know which of the Aussie players had called Larwood .... a very aggressive fast bowler ..... a bastard. The Aussie captain demanded of his team "Which one of you bastards called Larwood a bastard?"
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Name check as in it's the worst place in London to live?
Morning all. Late I know, but I've been trying to sort out posting on a new (to me) website which to me seems excessively complicated, although it might have been the chap who was trying to advise me!
I do think we've reached stage with the British Constitution where a revision of the House of Lords is necessary; it's noticeable that recently a few people seem to be being appointed for short-term posts ..... the Lady who has been appointed to represent Plaid Cymru for example.
And on quite another point, some of us have moved quite a long way; I'm 200 miles from where one set of grandparents lived, and 50 miles from the others, and I 'made' my wife move 250 miles from her parents. Now one of my children lives 60 miles from us and the other 5000. And I've two grandchildren in Australia!
My wife is much more travelled than me - she's lived abroad twice and visited a host of countries around the world, although I do edge her on countries visited in Europe - so it's a little ironic that we now live about five miles from where she grew up and about 200 miles from my childhood home (we moved to this area as I had a job offer; it was coincidental that it was so near where she grew up).
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
What’s your favourite Loriciferan?
Oh god, toughie. There's so many and they've all got their strong points.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
I have an, er, "aspiration" to do the Northern Ireland Railways.
House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II
To be known as The House of Bastards.
Titles would run in reverse complexity
5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard 4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard 3) The Right Honourable Bastard 2) Right Bastard 1) Bastard
I always chuckle to remember Denis Skinner being rebuked by the Speaker for calling an MP a creep, and substituting “honourable and learned creep.”
On the Bodyline cricket tour in the 30's the English captain stormed into the Australian dressing room to demand to know which of the Aussie players had called Larwood .... a very aggressive fast bowler ..... a bastard. The Aussie captain demanded of his team "Which one of you bastards called Larwood a bastard?"
Douglas Jardine. Finest captain we ever produced. In the next summers West Indies tour of England they employed bodyline (leg theory as Jardine had it) and Jardine declared he would deal with 'this nonsense' hitting his test highest 133. Body line was outlawed after the following winter tour of India. *lecture ends*
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Name check as in it's the worst place in London to live?
Lol, no. It's proper South London. Place in my heart because it was my first after uni, just a bedsit but it felt liberating.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
I have an, er, "aspiration" to do the Northern Ireland Railways.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
What’s your favourite Loriciferan?
Oh god, toughie. There's so many and they've all got their strong points.
You think so? I thought everyone would just go with the obvious, Spinoloricus or Rugiloricus.
listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.
It has. Anything hot does.
Half mass times velocity squared. Cooked steaks don't tend to have velocity (OK someone is going to say they do when being delivered, but not when resting). Unless you are including the movement inside the steak, but then you could consider absolutely everything by going down to the atomic level. At the basic level they do not.
I am simply referring to a whole steak and it was a joke.
God the pedantry this morning. You and @StillWaters should get together.
What about dining on, say, the Orient Express? To a passenger, the steak remains still but to a loved one waving goodbye on the platform, the steak is whizzing away at 30 miles an hour, possibly more if there is no track maintenance that day.
The special relativity of steaks on trains is what drove Einstein mad more than a century ago.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
PB needs some sort of website or app where we can tick off conversations.
listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.
It has. Anything hot does.
Half mass times velocity squared. Cooked steaks don't tend to have velocity (OK someone is going to say they do when being delivered, but not when resting). Unless you are including the movement inside the steak, but then you could consider absolutely everything by going down to the atomic level. At the basic level they do not.
I am simply referring to a whole steak and it was a joke.
God the pedantry this morning. You and @StillWaters should get together.
What about dining on, say, the Orient Express? To a passenger, the steak remains still but to a loved one waving goodbye on the platform, the steak is whizzing away at 30 miles an hour, possibly more if there is no track maintenance that day.
The special relativity of steaks on trains is what drove Einstein mad more than a century ago.
If the steak sped away from earth at light speed it might return to find so much time had passed that cows had evolved and it ends up consumed by one it's own descendents with opposable udders
Morning all. Late I know, but I've been trying to sort out posting on a new (to me) website which to me seems excessively complicated, although it might have been the chap who was trying to advise me!
I do think we've reached stage with the British Constitution where a revision of the House of Lords is necessary; it's noticeable that recently a few people seem to be being appointed for short-term posts ..... the Lady who has been appointed to represent Plaid Cymru for example.
And on quite another point, some of us have moved quite a long way; I'm 200 miles from where one set of grandparents lived, and 50 miles from the others, and I 'made' my wife move 250 miles from her parents. Now one of my children lives 60 miles from us and the other 5000. And I've two grandchildren in Australia!
Good afternoon
I moved from Manchester to Berwick when I was 9, then to Edinburgh when I was 17, and to North Wales when I was 21 and now live 86 miles from the semi detached I was born in and at the time under Hitler's flying bombs
My wife moved from Lossiemouth to Edinburgh when she was 22 and then to North Wales with me when she was 25
She is 456 miles for her hometown
And on the HOL it needs comprehensive reform and only elected - no more bishops or political placements or an award for utter failure
× I should add our eldest son lives in Vancouver 4,500 miles away
I agree with the header. The upper chamber should be stocked with people who are there for their subject matter expertise. The current HoL does not meet this spec and neither (in fact even less so) would an elected one.
So you remove all democratic accountability of this body for its legislative actions, and its avowed 'expertise' makes its decisions unchallengable. So effectively you make the second chamber of our parliament another guango (or to please William Glenn, a quago).
This despite the fact that the idea of a scientist or economist being a neutral, politically innocent computing machine who wears a white coat and does things with test tubes or graphs went out with char ladies and bowler hats - they all have a political agenda.
Can you see how thinking a little deeper than surface level might reveal this to be a rather bad idea?
It's one of those bad ideas whose only saving grace is being better than the alternatives. I specialise in them.
I can believe that it's the very best idea you've thought of.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Have we ever discussed my exciting plans to resurrect the Kingdom of the Wuffingas and how Norfolk is better than everywhere else?
Completely off-topic, but I've just spent a few days in Helsinki at a conference in a fairly unfashionable part of town. Not pretty, lots of concrete, not massively high-rise, but some 'streets in the sky' and underpasses/bridges etc over busy roads. The kind of area that, in the UK, would be dodgy as hell. Here there was graffiti - although generally of high quality street-art type and more people from minority ethnic groups than you see in the centre (which, in the absence of other information, I take as a proxy of for immigrant levels). The whole area, however, was clean and felt safe. There were plenty of women out jogging by themselves at 8 or 9pm (helps that it's light, I guess) and there was a large (long but thin) forested area within easy walking distance. The concrete offered excellent walking and cycling routes without the need to be on or - often - even cross busy roads. I've seen similar in other countries in the area - Sweden and Denmark (Sweden more than ten years ago now, before some of their current gang issues).
So, what makes it work? Better equality? More money on maintaining these spaces? The active travel routes and the forest access making it a much better place to live? There were also multiple small play areas and little parks, so every flat was near some nice outside space. I lived, over a decade ago, in a slightly comparable area in the UK in that it was in a flat, near woodland, but that lacked any real play facilities nearby or parks other than the woodland and was in quite a well-to-do part of town. The sink estates were much further from the green spaces.
The one thing that strikes me about the approach of Denmark and Finland to estates with lots of blocks of flats is that there is a lot of open space - it's still high density overall, but there is a lot of space given over to simply giving people space. It's as if the planners - and/or developers actually cared about making nice places to live for everyone. I don't think we had this in the UK.
Once again, it makes me a bit wistful for a different approach to public space and public goods.
ETA: There was a little park with a football pitch (well, no more than some hard ground and couple of goals) and a municipal (branded) football left lying around. How long would that last here?
That's quite a good summary.
In the UK we never invest in adequate maintenance of public space or services, due to money-scrimping and the pathetic "low tax" obsession, so by definition it deteriorates. Instead we get a focus on selling off a civilised future in exchange for thruppence now, as we have seen with the long-term results of eg water companies in the absence of adequate regulation.
There are examples of estates which have maintained high quality - the Barbican being one, because that was a market rent estate from the start,
And also perhaps certain other developments which are small enough for the local community to handle on their own and which have not been used as sink estates.
Current obsessively partisan politics from Conservatives and Reform will make this far worse.
That is why imo we need the current Government to succeed, however sticky the wicket.
I think that sensible Regional Mayors will be important and that key officials like Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners need to have a primary loyalty to their community not to their party or themselves - easy to say, harder to do.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Have we ever discussed my exciting plans to resurrect the Kingdom of the Wuffingas and how Norfolk is better than everywhere else?
Still very flat, though.
Went to a talk on the Sutton Hoo discoveries a couple of weeks ago.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Have we ever discussed my exciting plans to resurrect the Kingdom of the Wuffingas and how Norfolk is better than everywhere else?
Still very flat, though.
Went to a talk on the Sutton Hoo discoveries a couple of weeks ago.
Ahhhh Raedwald (possibly). Name of my next cat once I get out of this non cat flat!
Completely off-topic, but I've just spent a few days in Helsinki at a conference in a fairly unfashionable part of town. Not pretty, lots of concrete, not massively high-rise, but some 'streets in the sky' and underpasses/bridges etc over busy roads. The kind of area that, in the UK, would be dodgy as hell. Here there was graffiti - although generally of high quality street-art type and more people from minority ethnic groups than you see in the centre (which, in the absence of other information, I take as a proxy of for immigrant levels). The whole area, however, was clean and felt safe. There were plenty of women out jogging by themselves at 8 or 9pm (helps that it's light, I guess) and there was a large (long but thin) forested area within easy walking distance. The concrete offered excellent walking and cycling routes without the need to be on or - often - even cross busy roads. I've seen similar in other countries in the area - Sweden and Denmark (Sweden more than ten years ago now, before some of their current gang issues).
So, what makes it work? Better equality? More money on maintaining these spaces? The active travel routes and the forest access making it a much better place to live? There were also multiple small play areas and little parks, so every flat was near some nice outside space. I lived, over a decade ago, in a slightly comparable area in the UK in that it was in a flat, near woodland, but that lacked any real play facilities nearby or parks other than the woodland and was in quite a well-to-do part of town. The sink estates were much further from the green spaces.
The one thing that strikes me about the approach of Denmark and Finland to estates with lots of blocks of flats is that there is a lot of open space - it's still high density overall, but there is a lot of space given over to simply giving people space. It's as if the planners - and/or developers actually cared about making nice places to live for everyone. I don't think we had this in the UK.
Once again, it makes me a bit wistful for a different approach to public space and public goods.
ETA: There was a little park with a football pitch (well, no more than some hard ground and couple of goals) and a municipal (branded) football left lying around. How long would that last here?
That's quite a good summary.
In the UK we never invest in adequate maintenance of public space or services, due to money-scrimping and the pathetic "low tax" obsession, so by definition it deteriorates. Instead we get a focus on selling off a civilised future in exchange for thruppence now, as we have seen with the long-term results of eg water companies in the absence of adequate regulation.
There are examples of estates which have maintained high quality - the Barbican being one, because that was a market rent estate from the start,
And also perhaps certain other developments which are small enough for the local community to handle on their own and which have not been used as sink estates.
Current obsessively partisan politics from Conservatives and Reform will make this far worse.
That is why imo we need the current Government to succeed, however sticky the wicket.
I think that sensible Regional Mayors will be important and that key officials like Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners need to have a primary loyalty to their community not to their party or themselves - easy to say, harder to do.
In answer to your question, the football would not last - a tragedy of the commons, in the buzz phrase - because petty theft is part of our society's culture, from "top" to "bottom", with 57 varieties of excuse why it's not "my" responsibility.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Have we ever discussed my exciting plans to resurrect the Kingdom of the Wuffingas and how Norfolk is better than everywhere else?
Still very flat, though.
Went to a talk on the Sutton Hoo discoveries a couple of weeks ago.
Ahhhh Raedwald (possibly). Name of my next cat once I get out of this non cat flat!
Didn't Raedwald play it both ways, religiously speaking. Worshipped both the Christian God and the Old Ones?
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I've lived in about 20 different London postcodes. My first was SW7 and my current is NW3. I won't list all the ones in between but I would like to namecheck SE20. Penge.
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
Have we ever discussed my exciting plans to resurrect the Kingdom of the Wuffingas and how Norfolk is better than everywhere else?
Still very flat, though.
Went to a talk on the Sutton Hoo discoveries a couple of weeks ago.
Ahhhh Raedwald (possibly). Name of my next cat once I get out of this non cat flat!
Didn't Raedwald play it both ways, religiously speaking. Worshipped both the Christian God and the Old Ones?
Indeed he did, converted but ran shrines to both. Only East Anglian King to be considered the Bretwalda over the rest that we know of (obv the period 450 to 600 is pretty occluded)
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
Just a work visit to Belfast for me. I got 283 on that map yet NI is almost all blank. My only other unvisited bits were Hull and Sutherland, and I scored highly for having stayed almost all over.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
Just a work visit to Belfast for me. I got 283 on that map yet NI is almost all blank. My only other unvisited bits were Hull and Sutherland, and I scored highly for having stayed almost all over.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is supposed to appoint peers from the top of professional and business life so they are not just ex politicians and party donors
In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.
It's no different in practice in the Lords.
I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!
The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.
What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
You’re a brave man arguing that the Lords isn’t an innately conservative institution. Would you at least agree that it has been that historically? Famously so? And if you agree that, when did you think it changed?
The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.
As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
On that basis a third of the Lords should now be Reform, in reality it is liberal establishment, hence the Lords voted down so many Brexit bills
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
Just a work visit to Belfast for me. I got 283 on that map yet NI is almost all blank. My only other unvisited bits were Hull and Sutherland, and I scored highly for having stayed almost all over.
So we've no idea how large it really is.
The dog has however been to Ireland, as one of his seventeen countries visited. In a few weeks time we will be passing through Denmark, making eighteen.
On topic, I think there are two blatantly obvious reasons why the hereditaries need to go:
1 - They are all, I think without exception, men. And as hereditaries, that locks in a permanent imbalance. * 2 - They represent a systemic and effectively permanent political bias, since the current whip (2024) taken is:
Conservative Party: 45 hereditary peers Labour Party: 4 hereditary peers Liberal Democrats: 4 hereditary peers Independents/Crossbenchers: 39 peers
Removal of the hereditaries is a start, but I think continued gradual reform will be necessary (eg Bishops, peers who are 'resting'). I don't think even the current Tory party will have the brass neck to bring back hereditaries - if they ever get back into Government.
For me, the further problems that stick out like a sore thumb are the presence of some very dodgy individuals in the Lords eg former MP expenses fiddlers, who are seemingly unchallengeable, and various aspects of maintenance of inappropriate networks of influence, such as continued access to the Parliamentary Estate for former MPs. I'm not sure what happens to peers?.
'm not particularly concerned by numbers or attendance, as the first widens the experience base (assuming decent quality control) and in the second they are only paid per attendance day (assuming it is not abused).
* That is illegal afaics without specific statute law, and a legal action to the Supreme Court could be ... interesting.
In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.
It's no different in practice in the Lords.
I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!
The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.
What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
You’re a brave man arguing that the Lords isn’t an innately conservative institution. Would you at least agree that it has been that historically? Famously so? And if you agree that, when did you think it changed?
The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.
As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
On that basis a third of the Lords should now be Reform, in reality it is liberal establishment, hence the Lords voted down so many Brexit bills
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
Just a work visit to Belfast for me. I got 283 on that map yet NI is almost all blank. My only other unvisited bits were Hull and Sutherland, and I scored highly for having stayed almost all over.
Doing the map was fun. 255 for me. I've lived in York, Leeds, Edinburgh, London (x3), Norwich, Brighton. I've stayed everywhere in England except Rutland, though many of these were down to work. I perform poorly in Scotland, however, and zero points in NI.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is supposed to appoint peers from the top of professional and business life so they are not just ex politicians and party donors
F1: so.... that flexi-wing change appears to have made the McLaren more powerful than the FIA could possibly imagine.
Norris, though, was bitten by the return of porpoising, presumably resulting from the change. If they raise the ride height to cure it, they will be much slower.
In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.
It's no different in practice in the Lords.
I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!
The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.
What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
You’re a brave man arguing that the Lords isn’t an innately conservative institution. Would you at least agree that it has been that historically? Famously so? And if you agree that, when did you think it changed?
The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.
As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
If the Lords represents the establishment then that means it represents people exactly like you.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
How is it naive? An English devolved Government would have control over England. That doesn't bring any conflict at all with the other Home Nations. Dividing England into regions would ensure England's dominance in any federal set up, because they would be able to outvote the other nations by voting as a bloc.
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
Doesn't surprise me. Everything about you screams London.
Success, fame, wealth, hedonistic lifestyle? It’s all true, I must admit it.
F1: so.... that flexi-wing change appears to have made the McLaren more powerful than the FIA could possibly imagine.
Norris, though, was bitten by the return of porpoising, presumably resulting from the change. If they raise the ride height to cure it, they will be much slower.
So it's not quite so simple.
Sound irksome, but still a lot faster than every other car.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
How is it naive? An English devolved Government would have control over England. That doesn't bring any conflict at all with the other Home Nations. Dividing England into regions would ensure England's dominance in any federal set up, because they would be able to outvote the other nations by voting as a bloc.
That's not what we were talking about, though, is it ?
The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister...
In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.
It's no different in practice in the Lords.
I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!
The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.
What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
You’re a brave man arguing that the Lords isn’t an innately conservative institution. Would you at least agree that it has been that historically? Famously so? And if you agree that, when did you think it changed?
The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.
As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
If the Lords represents the establishment then that means it represents people exactly like you.
And that means people who are soaked in the garbage Common Purpose narratives of being an 'agent of social change', stuffed full of DEI, and militant on the overrriding importance of 'the transition' to Net Zero, who have left objective truth and having a guiding moral compass that exists outside what is written in the Equality and Human Rights Act far behind.
F1: so.... that flexi-wing change appears to have made the McLaren more powerful than the FIA could possibly imagine.
Norris, though, was bitten by the return of porpoising, presumably resulting from the change. If they raise the ride height to cure it, they will be much slower.
So it's not quite so simple.
Sound irksome, but still a lot faster than every other car.
Yes, but if it's an issue that affects Norris' setup more than Piasti's, then it could determine the championship.
The car is obviously the fastest, but is now less predictable for at least one of the drivers.
On topic, I think there are two blatantly obvious reasons why the hereditaries need to go:
1 - They are all, I think without exception, men. And as hereditaries, that locks in a permanent imbalance. * 2 - They represent a systemic and effectively permanent political bias, since the current whip (2024) taken is:
Conservative Party: 45 hereditary peers Labour Party: 4 hereditary peers Liberal Democrats: 4 hereditary peers Independents/Crossbenchers: 39 peers
Removal of the hereditaries is a start, but I think continued gradual reform will be necessary (eg Bishops, peers who are 'resting'). I don't think even the current Tory party will have the brass neck to bring back hereditaries - if they ever get back into Government.
For me, the further problems that stick out like a sore thumb are the presence of some very dodgy individuals in the Lords eg former MP expenses fiddlers, who are seemingly unchallengeable, and various aspects of maintenance of inappropriate networks of influence, such as continued access to the Parliamentary Estate for former MPs. I'm not sure what happens to peers?.
'm not particularly concerned by numbers or attendance, as the first widens the experience base (assuming decent quality control) and in the second they are only paid per attendance day (assuming it is not abused).
* That is illegal afaics without specific statute law, and a legal action to the Supreme Court could be ... interesting.
I would like the hereditary element to be retained - though I am happy with not all peers of the realm being represented, just the best of them, elected by each other.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
How is it naive? An English devolved Government would have control over England. That doesn't bring any conflict at all with the other Home Nations. Dividing England into regions would ensure England's dominance in any federal set up, because they would be able to outvote the other nations by voting as a bloc.
I think it’s unlikely that “England” would vote as a bloc on many things
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
On topic, I think there are two blatantly obvious reasons why the hereditaries need to go:
1 - They are all, I think without exception, men. And as hereditaries, that locks in a permanent imbalance. * 2 - They represent a systemic and effectively permanent political bias, since the current whip (2024) taken is:
Conservative Party: 45 hereditary peers Labour Party: 4 hereditary peers Liberal Democrats: 4 hereditary peers Independents/Crossbenchers: 39 peers
Removal of the hereditaries is a start, but I think continued gradual reform will be necessary (eg Bishops, peers who are 'resting'). I don't think even the current Tory party will have the brass neck to bring back hereditaries - if they ever get back into Government.
For me, the further problems that stick out like a sore thumb are the presence of some very dodgy individuals in the Lords eg former MP expenses fiddlers, who are seemingly unchallengeable, and various aspects of maintenance of inappropriate networks of influence, such as continued access to the Parliamentary Estate for former MPs. I'm not sure what happens to peers?.
'm not particularly concerned by numbers or attendance, as the first widens the experience base (assuming decent quality control) and in the second they are only paid per attendance day (assuming it is not abused).
* That is illegal afaics without specific statute law, and a legal action to the Supreme Court could be ... interesting.
I would like the hereditary element to be retained - though I am happy with not all peers of the realm being represented, just the best of them, elected by each other.
For me reasons 1 (particularly) and 2 are points of principle that I don't think I could compromise on.
There are a couple of significant benefits I think the hereditaries have helped institutionalise:
1 - Some representation of far-flung regions. 2 - Being a group tending to institutionalise relatively slower, long-term change, a sea anchor if you will which I think is a principle we need somewhere in our legislative process - especially as a check/balance given the Supremacy of the Commons. If we had a Trump, that could be an important restraint.
The Bishops also help with these, though obviously they have other questions around their status.
I think particular challenges are how to maintain a "non-politically-partisan mode" in the Lords - analogous to !free vote" in the Commons, how to maintain the quality of membership, and how to prevent self-serving representations.
Those are about culture and also about organisation.
I'm still quite sympathetic to the idea of a heterogeneous House of Lords, with an elected component who vote, and a more widely drawn "expert" or "eminent" component who debate but do not vote.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Where do I find the points scorecard? I lived much of my life in Essex but I've been a lot of places, family and work-wise.
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Labour’s poll ratings have dropped the most of any governing party over their first 10 months Change in support for each main party’s polling 10 months after general election, percentage points
Labour’s poll ratings have dropped the most of any governing party over their first 10 months Change in support for each main party’s polling 10 months after general election, percentage points
Looking at the overall trend both traditional big parties are in a lot of trouble, but looking at coverage of the same I'd say 'the death of the Tory party' is a bit overdone whereas 'the death of the Labour party' is a bit underdone
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Where do I find the points scorecard? I lived much of my life in Essex but I've been a lot of places, family and work-wise.
Click on each region of the map, give your answer, and your cumulative score appears just above the Highlands.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
Why? The UK PM would still have the same powers over UK affairs as they do now for the whole UK, just not over all English domestic affairs
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score ?
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
I cannot work out how to download the map based only on a phone, but I scored 272. I've stayed in almost every county in England and Scotland and North Wales and visited almost all the rest (just a pass through for Kent and Essex - must visit tge SE more. Lived in GM, SY Durham and Notts. Never been to Norn Iron though.
I agree with the header. The upper chamber should be stocked with people who are there for their subject matter expertise. The current HoL does not meet this spec and neither (in fact even less so) would an elected one.
So you remove all democratic accountability of this body for its legislative actions, and its avowed 'expertise' makes its decisions unchallengable. So effectively you make the second chamber of our parliament another guango (or to please William Glenn, a quago).
This despite the fact that the idea of a scientist or economist being a neutral, politically innocent computing machine who wears a white coat and does things with test tubes or graphs went out with char ladies and bowler hats - they all have a political agenda.
Can you see how thinking a little deeper than surface level might reveal this to be a rather bad idea?
It's one of those bad ideas whose only saving grace is being better than the alternatives. I specialise in them.
I can believe that it's the very best idea you've thought of.
It's not even in the top ten. I have only a passing interest in HoL reform whereas my very best ideas tend to be in areas that fascinate me. Things such as probability theory and why people say the things they do. You, for example, Lucky. Why do you say the things you do? There has to be a reason.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
Why? The UK PM would still have the same powers over UK affairs as they do now for the whole UK, just not over all English domestic affairs
Because, for example, they might not be from the same party.
The last decade or so has proven rather forcibly that saying "but the constitution" won't simply resolve such potential conflicts.
And it represents a huge reorganisation for little benefit in terms of devolution/fedaralism. The overwhelmingly London centric nature of English politics would, if anything, be reinforced.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I just remembered I stayed in Lincolnshire rather than simply passing through! I reckon there are a few more points I can pick up if I really think about it.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
The several instances of "[Redacted political content]" make it quite hard to judge whether or not he overstepped the mark with his historical comparisons.
While I'm sympathetic to the thrust of his argument, there are perfectly respectible counter arguments - for example the huge extension (at least partly by the courts) of the scope of asylum treaties.
International law matters (and simply saying let's ignore it is dangerous) - but so does our pragmatic response to it.
(FWIW, I don't think it's unfair to cite Carl Schmitt. His central thesis is very similar to some of the arguments advanced today.)
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score ?
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
I cannot work out how to download the map based only on a phone, but I scored 272. I've stayed in almost every county in England and Scotland and North Wales and visited almost all the rest (just a pass through for Kent and Essex - must visit tge SE more. Lived in GM, SY Durham and Notts. Never been to Norn Iron though.
252 for me. Stayed in a lot of places, but not adjacent to where I've lived.
Wigton, Essex, the Isle of Wight and the Northern Isles (major hole that one) are the only blanks.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
I'm hoping (but am I a naive fool clinging to a bygone era?) that Farage's policy platform will receive a thorough going over by the media once the election comes more into view.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
I'm hoping (but am I a naive fool clinging to a bygone era?) that Farage's policy platform will get a thorough going over by the media once the election comes more into view.
His 'net zero' promise is open to attack from the right because it doesn't do anything to stop demographic change. You could replace the entire population in the space of a year and still have net zero immigration.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
I'm hoping (but am I a naive fool clinging to a bygone era?) that Farage's policy platform will get a thorough going over by the media once the election comes more into view.
His 'net zero' promise is open to attack from the right because it doesn't do anything to stop demographic change. You could replace the entire population in the space of a year and still have net zero immigration.
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score ?
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
I cannot work out how to download the map based only on a phone, but I scored 272. I've stayed in almost every county in England and Scotland and North Wales and visited almost all the rest (just a pass through for Kent and Essex - must visit tge SE more. Lived in GM, SY Durham and Notts. Never been to Norn Iron though.
252 for me. Stayed in a lot of places, but not adjacent to where I've lived.
Wigton, Essex, the Isle of Wight and the Northern Isles (major hole that one) are the only blanks.
Can you genuinely remember all the places you've been to or through in your life?
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
Four and a bit years before the last election, Starmer was committed to increasing income tax on the top 5%, scrapping tuition fees, nationalising all utilities, spending 28bn on green stuff, and so on, so why bother taking any notice of what is said at this point at all? All the politician has to say is ‘circumstances have changed’ and they give themselves a free pass to ignore what they previously said
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
He said people were making the point, leaving the Human Rights convention, in the Palacevof Westminster, then started referencing those who opened the door to Hitler didn’t he?
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score ?
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
I cannot work out how to download the map based only on a phone, but I scored 272. I've stayed in almost every county in England and Scotland and North Wales and visited almost all the rest (just a pass through for Kent and Essex - must visit tge SE more. Lived in GM, SY Durham and Notts. Never been to Norn Iron though.
252 for me. Stayed in a lot of places, but not adjacent to where I've lived.
Wigton, Essex, the Isle of Wight and the Northern Isles (major hole that one) are the only blanks.
Can you genuinely remember all the places you've been to or through in your life?
For me: yes. Though I am younger than you. And I've started to notice recently mymemory of things which happened in my childhood is not what it once was.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
I'm hoping (but am I a naive fool clinging to a bygone era?) that Farage's policy platform will get a thorough going over by the media once the election comes more into view.
His 'net zero' promise is open to attack from the right because it doesn't do anything to stop demographic change. You could replace the entire population in the space of a year and still have net zero immigration.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
Why? The UK PM would still have the same powers over UK affairs as they do now for the whole UK, just not over all English domestic affairs
Because, for example, they might not be from the same party.
The last decade or so has proven rather forcibly that saying "but the constitution" won't simply resolve such potential conflicts.
And it represents a huge reorganisation for little benefit in terms of devolution/fedaralism. The overwhelmingly London centric nature of English politics would, if anything, be reinforced.
So? The Scottish and Northern Irish governments are not from the same party as the UK government now and nor was the Welsh government from the same party as the UK government in the last parliament.
London didn't vote for the party which won the majority of English seats for 4/5 of the last general elections so you are wrong on that too, especially as you could have the English Parliament based in say York and keep the UK Parliament in London
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
The several instances of "[Redacted political content]" make it quite hard to judge whether or not he overstepped the mark with his historical comparisons.
While I'm sympathetic to the thrust of his argument, there are perfectly respectible counter arguments - for example the huge extension (at least partly by the courts) of the scope of asylum treaties.
International law matters (and simply saying let's ignore it is dangerous) - but so does our pragmatic response to it.
(FWIW, I don't think it's unfair to cite Carl Schmitt. His central thesis is very similar to some of the arguments advanced today.)
I'd argue rolling back the ECHR is putting country before party, and the reason we are having to accommodate every chancer who turns up here from the Middle East and North Africa is because for decades politivians havebeen doing the reverse.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
He said people were making the point, leaving the Human Rights convention, in the Palacevof Westminster, then started referencing those who opened the door to Hitler didn’t he?
As I said, it's perfectly fair to reference Carl Schmitt. He's not just some old Nazi - he remains an influential legal/constitutional philosopher, whose ideas are still widely cited. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt hi
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
Only 199 for me. I think I've been everywhere in Great Britain with the exception of the very far north of Scotland and that big bit in the middle of Wales. No Isles of Man or Wight, only Down in NI. But I've only actually lived in four places in the UK: Fife, Tyne and Wear, Cambridgeshire and London. I lived overseas for eight years but no points for that. Not in this game!
I only got 86. Lived in Essex, North London & Brighton and rarely ventured further north than that. I did live in Gibraltar though, that should score points
Haven't you travelled the railway across nearly the entire mainland?
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score ?
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
I cannot work out how to download the map based only on a phone, but I scored 272. I've stayed in almost every county in England and Scotland and North Wales and visited almost all the rest (just a pass through for Kent and Essex - must visit tge SE more. Lived in GM, SY Durham and Notts. Never been to Norn Iron though.
252 for me. Stayed in a lot of places, but not adjacent to where I've lived.
Wigton, Essex, the Isle of Wight and the Northern Isles (major hole that one) are the only blanks.
Can you genuinely remember all the places you've been to or through in your life?
Most of my holidaying has been in the UK, so I can remember where I've been, yes.
Quite a few points were gained cycle touring with a tent many years ago and I could draw most of the routes on a map.
I think it depends whether you travelled round the UK for work or for leisure - the work stuff is harder to remember for me (I've just added a point remembering a work stay in Wrexham of all places).
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
The several instances of "[Redacted political content]" make it quite hard to judge whether or not he overstepped the mark with his historical comparisons.
While I'm sympathetic to the thrust of his argument, there are perfectly respectible counter arguments - for example the huge extension (at least partly by the courts) of the scope of asylum treaties.
International law matters (and simply saying let's ignore it is dangerous) - but so does our pragmatic response to it.
(FWIW, I don't think it's unfair to cite Carl Schmitt. His central thesis is very similar to some of the arguments advanced today.)
I'd argue rolling back the ECHR is putting country before party, and the reason we are having to accommodate every chancer who turns up here from the Middle East and North Africa is because for decades politivians havebeen doing the reverse.
Fair enough. But would you simply set it aside, as is proposed ? Or would you push to change it (as not a few European countries are also now suggesting) ?
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
I'm hoping (but am I a naive fool clinging to a bygone era?) that Farage's policy platform will get a thorough going over by the media once the election comes more into view.
His 'net zero' promise is open to attack from the right because it doesn't do anything to stop demographic change. You could replace the entire population in the space of a year and still have net zero immigration.
It's wrong to conflate the right with the great replacement theory. The latter type are on the right, and they're loud on social media, but they aren't a serious grouping amongst floating voters. We're talking hardcore racists here. I think Farage could afford to disappoint them as the price of securing his hold on the millions of generally pissed off 'system not working for people like me' folk which we seem to have.
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
Not if their powers were clearly defined and the same as the other home nations FMs had
That's naive.
Why? The UK PM would still have the same powers over UK affairs as they do now for the whole UK, just not over all English domestic affairs
Because, for example, they might not be from the same party.
The last decade or so has proven rather forcibly that saying "but the constitution" won't simply resolve such potential conflicts.
And it represents a huge reorganisation for little benefit in terms of devolution/fedaralism. The overwhelmingly London centric nature of English politics would, if anything, be reinforced.
So? The Scottish and Northern Irish governments are not from the same party as the UK government now and nor was the Welsh government from the same party as the UK government in the last parliament.
London didn't vote for the party which won the majority of English seats for 4/5 of the last general elections so you are wrong on that too, especially as you could have the English Parliament based in say York and keep the UK Parliament in London
I wanted the English Parliament to be in Battersea Power Station,but then they redeveloped it. York would be good.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
I'm not sure that's a wise political move, because afaics he made no such actual comparison. He is letting himself be defined by misrepresentation by his opponents.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
The several instances of "[Redacted political content]" make it quite hard to judge whether or not he overstepped the mark with his historical comparisons.
While I'm sympathetic to the thrust of his argument, there are perfectly respectible counter arguments - for example the huge extension (at least partly by the courts) of the scope of asylum treaties.
International law matters (and simply saying let's ignore it us dangerous) - but so does our pragmatic response to it.
I agree on the redaction; I could not find an unredacted text easily, though the 'offending' section (as quoted by the Guardian) is not redacted I think.
Yes on counter arguments, but that should be for reform not abolition.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
Four and a bit years before the last election, Starmer was committed to increasing income tax on the top 5%, scrapping tuition fees, nationalising all utilities, spending 28bn on green stuff, and so on, so why bother taking any notice of what is said at this point at all? All the politician has to say is ‘circumstances have changed’ and they give themselves a free pass to ignore what they previously said
I don't disagree with your post. Labour have been disingenuous, not least with their Conservative tax and spend programme whilst in Government.
My point is that the bias in reporting from the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Express, GBNews and TalkTV is almost at Newsmax and Fox levels of disinformation bias. This negative narrative is then latched onto by mainstream media and PB commentators.
On the other hand, take Liz Truss's budget, reported as the greatest and "most Conservative Budget" since the 1980s by the Mail, Telegraph and the Daily Farage) and not a whisper when it collapsed around her ears except for the Star's glorious lettuce analogy.
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
That's a very bad faith representation of what he said.
You say 'bad faith representation', others say 'attention grabbing, excellent politics'.
To be honest, it's always (because Lam isn't the first to do this, and it's not unique to the right) the hypocrisy that grates. Politician X is allowed to do studs-up, bad faith misrepresentations of their opponents, but cries foul when anything remotely similar is done to them.
Lord Hermer, Starmer’s AG & the government’s shield for not doing anything about the small boats is currently apologising for saying Reform & the Conservatives are the equivalent of 1930s Nazis
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
I looked into this. It's bollox and he shouldn't be apologising. He did not compare political opponents to the Nazis. He merely pointed to the dangers of a "nation state power trumps all else" viewpoint by reference to it also being advanced by certain German thinkers in the 1930s. This is the right being snowflakes (as per) and Duffield being a snark with a grudge.
We are in a World where statements can be nuanced in a way to inflict maximum political damage to one's opponents. I suspect it was always thus, but today the media is so morally corrupt that a positive story can be sold as negative and vice versa. Starmer's (disappointing) but nonetheless improved arrangement with the EU is sold as a capitulation whilst Johnson's disastrous "oven- ready" deal is hailed as a victory. Labour in opposition had (quite rightly) their proposed economic programme critiqued in minutiae, whilst Farage's Trussian proposals get a free ride.
Four and a bit years before the last election, Starmer was committed to increasing income tax on the top 5%, scrapping tuition fees, nationalising all utilities, spending 28bn on green stuff, and so on, so why bother taking any notice of what is said at this point at all? All the politician has to say is ‘circumstances have changed’ and they give themselves a free pass to ignore what they previously said
I don't disagree with your post. Labour have been disingenuous, not least with their Conservative tax and spend programme whilst in Government.
My point is that the bias in reporting from the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Express, GBNews and TalkTV is almost at Newsmax and Fox levels of disinformation bias. This negative narrative is then latched onto by mainstream media and PB commentators.
On the other hand, take Liz Truss's budget, reported as the greatest and "most Conservative Budget" since the 1980s by the Mail, Telegraph and the Daily Farage) and not a whisper when it collapsed around her ears except for the Star's glorious lettuce analogy.
Not entirely true, the pro-Tory papers were quick to blame the "woke Treasury Establishment" and "inertia" in "the Blob" (yawn) for the failure of the Kwarteng budget.
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
That's a very bad faith representation of what he said.
You say 'bad faith representation', others say 'attention grabbing, excellent politics'.
To be honest, it's always (because Lam isn't the first to do this, and it's not unique to the right) the hypocrisy that grates. Politician X is allowed to do studs-up, bad faith misrepresentations of their opponents, but cries foul when anything remotely similar is done to them.
Hypocrisy isn't really the right word if you accept that it's just how the game of politics is played. A politician should be aware of how their words can be used and misused by their opponents.
Nige’s main rival for next PM chips in on Lord Hermer
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
That's a very bad faith representation of what he said.
You say 'bad faith representation', others say 'attention grabbing, excellent politics'.
To be honest, it's always (because Lam isn't the first to do this, and it's not unique to the right) the hypocricy that grates. Politician X is allowed to do studs-up, bad faith misrepresentations of their opponents, but cries foul when anything remotely similar is done to them.
Absolutely, Hermer has his statement contextualised as disrespecting Holocaust victims and suggesting political opponents are Nazis (which is disingenuous at the very least) yet on the other hand Johnson can make overtly racist narratives ( pillar boxes, picanninies etc) which are glossed over as satire.
Comments
The Aussie captain demanded of his team "Which one of you bastards called Larwood a bastard?"
We've had this conversation on PB before. Are there any conversations we haven't had?
In the next summers West Indies tour of England they employed bodyline (leg theory as Jardine had it) and Jardine declared he would deal with 'this nonsense' hitting his test highest 133. Body line was outlawed after the following winter tour of India.
*lecture ends*
The special relativity of steaks on trains is what drove Einstein mad more than a century ago.
I moved from Manchester to Berwick when I was 9, then to Edinburgh when I was 17, and to North Wales when I was 21 and now live 86 miles from the semi detached I was born in and at the time under Hitler's flying bombs
My wife moved from Lossiemouth to Edinburgh when she was 22 and then to North Wales with me when she was 25
She is 456 miles for her hometown
And on the HOL it needs comprehensive reform and only elected - no more bishops or political placements or an award for utter failure
× I should add our eldest son lives in Vancouver 4,500 miles away
In the UK we never invest in adequate maintenance of public space or services, due to money-scrimping and the pathetic "low tax" obsession, so by definition it deteriorates. Instead we get a focus on selling off a civilised future in exchange for thruppence now, as we have seen with the long-term results of eg water companies in the absence of adequate regulation.
There are examples of estates which have maintained high quality - the Barbican being one, because that was a market rent estate from the start,
And also perhaps certain other developments which are small enough for the local community to handle on their own and which have not been used as sink estates.
Current obsessively partisan politics from Conservatives and Reform will make this far worse.
That is why imo we need the current Government to succeed, however sticky the wicket.
I think that sensible Regional Mayors will be important and that key officials like Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners need to have a primary loyalty to their community not to their party or themselves - easy to say, harder to do.
Went to a talk on the Sutton Hoo discoveries a couple of weeks ago.
Korea backed the wrong side.
Only East Anglian King to be considered the Bretwalda over the rest that we know of (obv the period 450 to 600 is pretty occluded)
Can we not recruit peers like normal jobs?
Surely we already do, if you consider the particular habits of those doing the recruiting ?
Nepotism, backscratching and self interest are not entirely unknown in "normal jobs".
1 - They are all, I think without exception, men. And as hereditaries, that locks in a permanent imbalance. *
2 - They represent a systemic and effectively permanent political bias, since the current whip (2024) taken is:
Conservative Party: 45 hereditary peers
Labour Party: 4 hereditary peers
Liberal Democrats: 4 hereditary peers
Independents/Crossbenchers: 39 peers
https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/new-era-uk-house-lords-labours-removal-hereditary-peers
Removal of the hereditaries is a start, but I think continued gradual reform will be necessary (eg Bishops, peers who are 'resting'). I don't think even the current Tory party will have the brass neck to bring back hereditaries - if they ever get back into Government.
For me, the further problems that stick out like a sore thumb are the presence of some very dodgy individuals in the Lords eg former MP expenses fiddlers, who are seemingly unchallengeable, and various aspects of maintenance of inappropriate networks of influence, such as continued access to the Parliamentary Estate for former MPs. I'm not sure what happens to peers?.
'm not particularly concerned by numbers or attendance, as the first widens the experience base (assuming decent quality control) and in the second they are only paid per attendance day (assuming it is not abused).
* That is illegal afaics without specific statute law, and a legal action to the Supreme Court could be ... interesting.
I've stayed everywhere in England except Rutland, though many of these were down to work.
I perform poorly in Scotland, however, and zero points in NI.
If they raise the ride height to cure it, they will be much slower.
So it's not quite so simple.
An exciting day for you is taking off your tie after you get back from a committee meeting at the Department for Work and Pensions.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/05/spanish-grand-prix-2025-pre-qualifying.html
The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister...
The car is obviously the fastest, but is now less predictable for at least one of the drivers.
There are a couple of significant benefits I think the hereditaries have helped institutionalise:
1 - Some representation of far-flung regions.
2 - Being a group tending to institutionalise relatively slower, long-term change, a sea anchor if you will which I think is a principle we need somewhere in our legislative process - especially as a check/balance given the Supremacy of the Commons. If we had a Trump, that could be an important restraint.
The Bishops also help with these, though obviously they have other questions around their status.
I think particular challenges are how to maintain a "non-politically-partisan mode" in the Lords - analogous to !free vote" in the Commons, how to maintain the quality of membership, and how to prevent self-serving representations.
Those are about culture and also about organisation.
I'm still quite sympathetic to the idea of a heterogeneous House of Lords, with an elected component who vote, and a more widely drawn "expert" or "eminent" component who debate but do not vote.
Rosie Duffield on the wisdom of politicians appointing Lords
Who ever could have guessed, if you gift one of your besties a peerage and a top Government role, despite them never having been an elected MP, and having had zero political experience in Parliament, they might actually turn out to be really quite crap at politics...?!
https://x.com/rosieduffield1/status/1928504221290078284?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Given that there are 91 areas on the mainland, and going through on a train is one, whilst stopping at a station is two, does that not make it a bit higher?
Or have I got to review my 300+ score
Max mainland-only score would be 455.
Change in support for each main party’s polling 10 months after general election, percentage points
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/31/labours-poll-ratings-drop-is-starmer-future-in-question
The last decade or so has proven rather forcibly that saying "but the constitution" won't simply resolve such potential conflicts.
And it represents a huge reorganisation for little benefit in terms of devolution/fedaralism. The overwhelmingly London centric nature of English politics would, if anything, be reinforced.
He made a comparison of the potential consequences of rolling back international law, and letting the political interests of the current party in control override the basic systems of the State/country, and is the basic agenda of those behind Trump. That was what happened in 1933, and his apposite warning is where it can lead.
It's a standard playbook - try and avoid a criticism by invoking a far more extreme version and demanding in a loud voice "Why are you calling me THIS?".
I'd say he should have issued a careful statement, then made a speech, ramming their claim straight back down their throats, refusing to be pulled down into the mud. This is Starmer & co being too timid again, and ceding control of the agenda.
Both the Conservative Right and Reform are politically fragile, and need to be shattered into little pieces.
Official text of the speech:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-2025-rusi-annual-security-lecture
Guardian report:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/30/attorney-general-richard-hermer-apologises-for-comparing-tories-and-reform-to-nazis
While I'm sympathetic to the thrust of his argument, there are perfectly respectible counter arguments - for example the huge extension (at least partly by the courts) of the scope of asylum treaties.
International law matters (and simply saying let's ignore it is dangerous) - but so does our pragmatic response to it.
(FWIW, I don't think it's unfair to cite Carl Schmitt. His central thesis is very similar to some of the arguments advanced today.)
Wigton, Essex, the Isle of Wight and the Northern Isles (major hole that one) are the only blanks.
Though I am younger than you. And I've started to notice recently mymemory of things which happened in my childhood is not what it once was.
London didn't vote for the party which won the majority of English seats for 4/5 of the last general elections so you are wrong on that too, especially as you could have the English Parliament based in say York and keep the UK Parliament in London
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt hi
Quite a few points were gained cycle touring with a tent many years ago and I could draw most of the routes on a map.
I think it depends whether you travelled round the UK for work or for leisure - the work stuff is harder to remember for me (I've just added a point remembering a work stay in Wrexham of all places).
My grandmother fled the Nazis.
My grandfather’s family were murdered by them.
Our Attorney General likened questioning an agreement (made a lifetime ago in a different world) with a savage, psycopathic regime that killed millions.
He says it was “clumsy”. I say it’s repugnant
https://x.com/katie_lam_mp/status/1928771268938985582?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
But would you simply set it aside, as is proposed ? Or would you push to change it (as not a few European countries are also now suggesting) ?
First time I've been to Greece. It's quite nice.
Yes on counter arguments, but that should be for reform not abolition.
“It’s only crime when the “little people” do it.”
https://x.com/theonlypeterkay/status/1928445904920383918
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295157/Millionaire-minister-Robert-Jenrick-forced-repay-122-expenses-double-claim.html
My point is that the bias in reporting from the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Express, GBNews and TalkTV is almost at Newsmax and Fox levels of disinformation bias. This negative narrative is then latched onto by mainstream media and PB commentators.
On the other hand, take Liz Truss's budget, reported as the greatest and "most Conservative Budget" since the 1980s by the Mail, Telegraph and the Daily Farage) and not a whisper when it collapsed around her ears except for the Star's glorious lettuce analogy.
To be honest, it's always (because Lam isn't the first to do this, and it's not unique to the right) the hypocrisy that grates. Politician X is allowed to do studs-up, bad faith misrepresentations of their opponents, but cries foul when anything remotely similar is done to them.