I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
Ellie Reeves was named Solicitor-General yesterday.
I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
Ellie Reeves was named Solicitor-General yesterday.
Yes but thats not a cabinet position so shes out of the cabinet
William Dalrymple @DalrympleWill · 3h BBC News is now running a full-blown recruitment campaign for Reform. This report, by the BBC political editor, doesn't even make a stab at neutrality in its breathless enthusiasm for Farage
He's probably just annoyed that the BBC isn't being positively anti-Reform for the first time ever.
The BBC have spent the last few months fawning over Reform which came to a head today with Masons article .
How absurd you are! A newish party comfortably leads in all the polls and you object because the BBC reports on the phenomenon. If the government showed a modicum of competence on any of the key issues Reform would be no threat. When you add bucket loads of corruption and hypocrisy... The plain truth is that the Labour seat majority flatters to deceive when you look at votes cast. It hasn't required much to leave them holes below the waterline. They are now objects of contempt and ridicule and to expect the important news outlets to pretend otherwise is utterly absurd.
All quite true.
Reform seems to make people here irrational bordering conspiracy theorist.
Of course they’re going get coverage and the BBC hardly gave Richard Tice an easy ride this week. The BBC are there to report not do the other parties job for them. It’s all a bit Norman Tebbit in the eighties on here.
No one here complains about the blatant left of centre slant of channel 4 news.
There’s a group of the online left, who appear to think the BBC should be taking the same attitude towards Farage as CNN and MSNBC do towards Trump.
Except that the BBC are supposed to be impartial, and will be giving similar coverage to every party’s conference.
I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
Ellie Reeves was named Solicitor-General yesterday.
Yes but thats not a cabinet position so shes out of the cabinet
Yes but it is a promotion as she was only in Cabinet ex officio as party chair. Now she has a proper job.
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I take a similar view. I dont grovel and scrape and doff my cap like a good little drone. I am much less pro monarchy as a system than in my youth too. Especially with sausage fingers now arsing about and being a ridiculous twit. Steelers Wheel 'Stuck In The Middle' would be a far more apposite anthem
Far better the King than President Farage or Starmer. I also think he and William are quietly reforming and modernising the monarchy and making it a bit less formal and with fewer working royals. The King is also one of the most intellectual and well read monarchs we have had for some time and certainly more intellectual and well read and with a wider range of cultural interests than Farage, Starmer or Badenoch.
I would though have Land of Hope and Glory as the UK anthem and Jerusalem as the English anthem with GSTK as just the royal anthem at events the King attends
I probably missed us covering this overnight but in case not with Turley in as Minister without anything to do, Reeves sister Ellie is out of the cabinet
Ellie Reeves was named Solicitor-General yesterday.
Yes but thats not a cabinet position so shes out of the cabinet
Yes but it is a promotion as she was only in Cabinet ex officio as party chair. Now she has a proper job.
Sure. But Reeves no longer has her sister alongside her in cabinet is the point. The CoE is being further sidelined ready to take the hit and be sacked after the budget if things go further south. Its was an 'effect on the Chancellor' comment not an 'Ellies career' comment
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
Sp what are you plans to cutting government spending so we live within our means?
The budget can also be balanced by tax rises, but in terms of plans to cut government spending I would scrap the Triple Lock and indexing of benefits, leaving both to the Chancellors discretion in view of the overall financial picture.
A 6pp increase in taxes? That’s like a 20% increase in total taxes (from 35.5% to 41.5% of GDP). Do you think that might have an impact on growth and investment?
And you’ve not suggested cutting spending at all. Just reducing future increases.
The September inflation figure is used to set next years triple lock, so scrapping it could mean zero increase next year, or indeed a cut in nominal terms if the CoE chose to do so. That certainly saves money out of next years budget, and even more going forward due to compounding. This would be a major move to balancing the budget in medium term.
I would also make NI due on pensions and unearned income in a move towards integrating the two into a single tax.
Sure, there is short term pain, but a balanced budget and sound government finances is a foundation for encouraging growth and investment. Deficit spending via Trussite tax cuts or Brownite largesse is not a stimulus to growth, it is an addiction much like giving an alcoholic another bottle to stave off hangover.
Interesting debate on The Terrorism Act 2000 . When even Jack Straw and the Tories seem moderate I begin to suspect that Starmer isn't up to it. Was Greenpeace a 'Terrorist Organisation'
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I take a similar view. I dont grovel and scrape and doff my cap like a good little drone. I am much less pro monarchy as a system than in my youth too. Especially with sausage fingers now arsing about and being a ridiculous twit. Steelers Wheel 'Stuck In The Middle' would be a far more apposite anthem
The King is also one of the most intellectual and well read monarchs we have had for some time and certainly more intellectual and well read and with a wider range of cultural interests than Farage, Starmer or Badenoch.
I'm not a singer of the anthem either, but I actually agree with this.
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I don't like the national anthem either.
It isn't really a national anthem, it is a monarchist anthem, and also carries theological baggage about the nature of salvation.
Archers theme ( thanks Billy Connolly) Jerusalem or Angels by Robbie Williams?
Llandudno RNLI inshore lifeboat was called to an injury to a lady in her 70s have fallen in a local speedboat on a trip and, whilst the speedboat came alongside the jetty, she couldn't move and the 4 person crew administered Entonox [ they are trained to do this] and with the help of the coastguards carried her to a local hotel to await ambulance
It arrived 9 [Nine] hours later to take her to hospital !!!!!!
That is shocking. I, and I suspect most, have already concluded that if I or my wife ever need a hip or knee replacement or rapid attention to a variety of ailments then there is little option other than to go private with the NHS being a literal and unacceptable pain. But A&E is one of the things they are supposed to be good at. £188bn in a year. WTF are they spending it on other than themselves?
I'm with you that the response time is slow, even though it is non-emergency. Did they get a paramedic? I had a look at response time targets.
It's devolved by nation, remember. These are the Welsh categories:
The categories for the response model are as follows:
“Red” refers to immediately life-threatening incidents “Amber” refers to incidents that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening “Green” refers to neither serious, nor life-threatening incidents
Wales has no target response standard for non-life-threatening response times (which I did not know).
Ambulance response standards for Wales Only Red calls have a set response standard. 65% of these types of calls are expected to have an emergency response at the scene within 8 minutes.
ESNI are comprehensive in defined response times. The Scottish targets are interestingly different to E & NI, which are afaics aligned. Wales only has a target for life-threatening cases, which is a decision taken to 'focus on the immediately life-threatening".
The RNLI crew stayed with her for the whole 9 hours monitoring her stats and keeping her as comfortable as possible
They are trained in casualty care and did provide relief crew
She was seriously injured and it is simply unacceptable that an ambulance took nine hours to take her to hospital
That’s the real issue: the actions of the NHS meant that an RNLI crew was unavailable to help anyone else in need. They need to consider broader resource allocation
And the failure of social care system has meant that the NHS was unable to promptly help someone in need.
It can't be that all our problems are fundamentally about a collective unwillingness to fund social care properly through taxes, but sometimes it seems that way.
(Yes, the present government shouldn't have kicked the issue into the long grass- but that is true of their predecessors as well. It doesn't need a government with a large majority to do unpopular things, it needs one that isn't trying to win the next election. Since Sunak and Hunt were already dead from the beginning, they could have realised that grasping a few nettles couldn't kill them.)
Social care is the Gordian knot here, I’d agree. Another thing Osborne screwed up with his “death tax” nonsense
That was Corbyn. The 2017 election and May's social care reforms which the voters agreed with Corbyn were a dementia tax ensured no government will touch the issue with a bargepole again in terms of anything controversial.
Personally I favour an insurance system for it like Japan
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
Sp what are you plans to cutting government spending so we live within our means?
The budget can also be balanced by tax rises, but in terms of plans to cut government spending I would scrap the Triple Lock and indexing of benefits, leaving both to the Chancellors discretion in view of the overall financial picture.
A 6pp increase in taxes? That’s like a 20% increase in total taxes (from 35.5% to 41.5% of GDP). Do you think that might have an impact on growth and investment?
And you’ve not suggested cutting spending at all. Just reducing future increases.
The September inflation figure is used to set next years triple lock, so scrapping it could mean zero increase next year, or indeed a cut in nominal terms if the CoE chose to do so. That certainly saves money out of next years budget, and even more going forward due to compounding. This would be a major move to balancing the budget in medium term.
I would also make NI due on pensions and unearned income in a move towards integrating the two into a single tax.
Sure, there is short term pain, but a balanced budget and sound government finances is a foundation for encouraging growth and investment. Deficit spending via Trussite tax cuts or Brownite largesse is not a stimulus to growth, it is an addiction much like giving an alcoholic another bottle to stave off hangover.
As a doctor you know that you need to address the underlying disease not the symptom.
The disease is mission creep and lack of productivity in government spending. Taxes are only part of the story.
For example, central government employs 0.5m more people than in 2020. Has there been a similar increase in output? If not, why not? And could that £15bn (assuming an average of £30k per head) be better utilised reducing the deficit? And the employees add more to the economy in the private sector?
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
Is he employing the but shes a mum and working class and everything defence?
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
Is he employing the but shes a mum and working class and everything defence?
He says he hasn't a clue what stamp duty is. Like, I'm sure that's complete bollocks.
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
Which Brian Cox was it? Boring nerdy one or amusing angry one?
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
Which Brian Cox was it? Boring nerdy one or amusing angry one?
Llandudno RNLI inshore lifeboat was called to an injury to a lady in her 70s have fallen in a local speedboat on a trip and, whilst the speedboat came alongside the jetty, she couldn't move and the 4 person crew administered Entonox [ they are trained to do this] and with the help of the coastguards carried her to a local hotel to await ambulance
It arrived 9 [Nine] hours later to take her to hospital !!!!!!
That is shocking. I, and I suspect most, have already concluded that if I or my wife ever need a hip or knee replacement or rapid attention to a variety of ailments then there is little option other than to go private with the NHS being a literal and unacceptable pain. But A&E is one of the things they are supposed to be good at. £188bn in a year. WTF are they spending it on other than themselves?
I'm with you that the response time is slow, even though it is non-emergency. Did they get a paramedic? I had a look at response time targets.
It's devolved by nation, remember. These are the Welsh categories:
The categories for the response model are as follows:
“Red” refers to immediately life-threatening incidents “Amber” refers to incidents that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening “Green” refers to neither serious, nor life-threatening incidents
Wales has no target response standard for non-life-threatening response times (which I did not know).
Ambulance response standards for Wales Only Red calls have a set response standard. 65% of these types of calls are expected to have an emergency response at the scene within 8 minutes.
ESNI are comprehensive in defined response times. The Scottish targets are interestingly different to E & NI, which are afaics aligned. Wales only has a target for life-threatening cases, which is a decision taken to 'focus on the immediately life-threatening".
The RNLI crew stayed with her for the whole 9 hours monitoring her stats and keeping her as comfortable as possible
They are trained in casualty care and did provide relief crew
She was seriously injured and it is simply unacceptable that an ambulance took nine hours to take her to hospital
That’s the real issue: the actions of the NHS meant that an RNLI crew was unavailable to help anyone else in need. They need to consider broader resource allocation
And the failure of social care system has meant that the NHS was unable to promptly help someone in need.
It can't be that all our problems are fundamentally about a collective unwillingness to fund social care properly through taxes, but sometimes it seems that way.
(Yes, the present government shouldn't have kicked the issue into the long grass- but that is true of their predecessors as well. It doesn't need a government with a large majority to do unpopular things, it needs one that isn't trying to win the next election. Since Sunak and Hunt were already dead from the beginning, they could have realised that grasping a few nettles couldn't kill them.)
Social care is the Gordian knot here, I’d agree. Another thing Osborne screwed up with his “death tax” nonsense
That was Corbyn. The 2017 election and May's social care reforms which the voters agreed with Corbyn were a dementia tax ensured no government will touch the issue with a bargepole again in terms of anything controversial.
Personally I favour an insurance system for it like Japan
Dilnot was attacked by the Tories in the run up to 2010, punted in 2012 and then delayed in 2015. Treasury said it was too expensive
I haven't watched the BBC Sunday 9am politics show in ages. I'm reliably informed that the BBC is the mouthpiece for Reform and who do they have on? Brian Cox who predictably comes out in defence of the tax dodger Rayner.
Which Brian Cox was it? Boring nerdy one or amusing angry one?
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I don't like the national anthem either.
It isn't really a national anthem, it is a monarchist anthem, and also carries theological baggage about the nature of salvation.
Archers theme ( thanks Billy Connolly) Jerusalem or Angels by Robbie Williams?
The Archers theme would make me seriously consider changing citizenship.
Nothing more reliably brings out the heavy sigh and “oh ffs” while reaching for the off button than the bloody Archers theme, given the Archers seems to be in the schedule every time I make any journey in the car.
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I don't like the national anthem either.
It isn't really a national anthem, it is a monarchist anthem, and also carries theological baggage about the nature of salvation.
Many national anthems express sentiments it might not be entirely to everyone's benefit to dig into on too much detail. The bigger problem with GSTK is that it's a bit of a dirge.
I rather like Jerusalem as an English national anthem. Hard to sing though. If I start off in my normal register I can't reach low enough to get to 'green' - and I have quite a low voice.
Is 'I vow to theemy country' considered English or British? It (well it's tune, i.e. Jupiter) was on the proms last night. I rather like it.
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
Sp what are you plans to cutting government spending so we live within our means?
The budget can also be balanced by tax rises, but in terms of plans to cut government spending I would scrap the Triple Lock and indexing of benefits, leaving both to the Chancellors discretion in view of the overall financial picture.
A 6pp increase in taxes? That’s like a 20% increase in total taxes (from 35.5% to 41.5% of GDP). Do you think that might have an impact on growth and investment?
And you’ve not suggested cutting spending at all. Just reducing future increases.
The September inflation figure is used to set next years triple lock, so scrapping it could mean zero increase next year, or indeed a cut in nominal terms if the CoE chose to do so. That certainly saves money out of next years budget, and even more going forward due to compounding. This would be a major move to balancing the budget in medium term.
I would also make NI due on pensions and unearned income in a move towards integrating the two into a single tax.
Sure, there is short term pain, but a balanced budget and sound government finances is a foundation for encouraging growth and investment. Deficit spending via Trussite tax cuts or Brownite largesse is not a stimulus to growth, it is an addiction much like giving an alcoholic another bottle to stave off hangover.
As a doctor you know that you need to address the underlying disease not the symptom.
The disease is mission creep and lack of productivity in government spending. Taxes are only part of the story.
For example, central government employs 0.5m more people than in 2020. Has there been a similar increase in output? If not, why not? And could that £15bn (assuming an average of £30k per head) be better utilised reducing the deficit? And the employees add more to the economy in the private sector?
Of course productivity issues in the public sector* need addressing, but these are largely underway already and built into current plans. My NHS Trust is shedding 6% of its workforce this fin-year, NHS England and the ICBs are shedding 50%.
So it's not as if we are not doing anything about it. Quite whether the cuts will enhance or damage productivity is unclear. Increasingly I am acting as a very expensive secretary!
Private sector productivity has been pretty languid in recent decades too
William Dalrymple @DalrympleWill · 3h BBC News is now running a full-blown recruitment campaign for Reform. This report, by the BBC political editor, doesn't even make a stab at neutrality in its breathless enthusiasm for Farage
Well it did. And I loathe Reform. Hitler was one popular.
Godwins. And so early in the day.
Springtime for Farage. He was just a paper hanger.
May I ask; do you see any negatives, or have genuine criticisms, about Farage and his party?
I have posted several here.
Not being rabidly anti reform and seeing them as the new Nazis does not make one a supporter. I just find the hysteria around them odd
I have a foreign-born wife. In fact, one who was born in a Muslim country. I don't think it's 'hysterical' to see what many Reform-aligned people say as a threat to her. And indeed, our son.
Without being personal your wife presumably is culturally aligned to the UK? No veil, no prayers 5 times a day to a sky fairy, no calling for jihad? Most people upset about immigration from Muslim countries are partly upset by culture, not ethnicity. If they were all doctors, engineers, etc sharing a beer after work etc there would be a lot fewer issues.
Those who have pushed multiculturalism have much to answer for. They might think it just means a great range of restaurants to eat in but forget it also sometimes means views that are counter to the British way of life.
I saw a woman in a full on burwua/niquab or whatever the one is where you cannot even see the face, in Warminstwr. Walking behind a chap dressed in shorts and a T shirt. Maybe that's her choice. But how is she going to integrate like that?
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I don't like the national anthem either.
It isn't really a national anthem, it is a monarchist anthem, and also carries theological baggage about the nature of salvation.
Archers theme ( thanks Billy Connolly) Jerusalem or Angels by Robbie Williams?
The Archers theme would make me seriously consider changing citizenship.
Nothing more reliably brings out the heavy sigh and “oh ffs” while reaching for the off button than the bloody Archers theme, given the Archers seems to be in the schedule every time I make any journey in the car.
I agree with the suggestion of I vow to thee my country as a national anthem.
The Archers theme personally makes me think of two things, one positive and negative ; sunny and civilised car journeys to the country on a sunday lumchtime, and the more stifling aspect of the rural middle-class from my years in Sussex, that I eventually needed a change from.
Interesting debate on The Terrorism Act 2000 . When even Jack Straw and the Tories seem moderate I begin to suspect that Starmer isn't up to it. Was Greenpeace a 'Terrorist Organisation'
The Labour right wing takeover was built around authoritarian principles and routine intimidation of members that want to get on. It’s why they have ended up with such weak MPs. They won. But a side effect was turning the party’s MPs into dilettante centrists and unprincipled yes people.
“Terrorist” being devalued by applying it to our best citizens is Labour head office smearing opponents as they have learnt works within their organisation.
Honestly, I wonder how Reform would be worse?
I voted Labour because our local Tory MP was a bad lot. But I regret my choice. Not voting at all would have left a better taste. ( in retrospect )
William Dalrymple @DalrympleWill · 3h BBC News is now running a full-blown recruitment campaign for Reform. This report, by the BBC political editor, doesn't even make a stab at neutrality in its breathless enthusiasm for Farage
Well it did. And I loathe Reform. Hitler was one popular.
Godwins. And so early in the day.
Springtime for Farage. He was just a paper hanger.
May I ask; do you see any negatives, or have genuine criticisms, about Farage and his party?
I have posted several here.
Not being rabidly anti reform and seeing them as the new Nazis does not make one a supporter. I just find the hysteria around them odd
I have a foreign-born wife. In fact, one who was born in a Muslim country. I don't think it's 'hysterical' to see what many Reform-aligned people say as a threat to her. And indeed, our son.
Without being personal your wife presumably is culturally aligned to the UK? No veil, no prayers 5 times a day to a sky fairy, no calling for jihad? Most people upset about immigration from Muslim countries are partly upset by culture, not ethnicity. If they were all doctors, engineers, etc sharing a beer after work etc there would be a lot fewer issues.
Those who have pushed multiculturalism have much to answer for. They might think it just means a great range of restaurants to eat in but forget it also sometimes means views that are counter to the British way of life.
I saw a woman in a full on burwua/niquab or whatever the one is where you cannot even see the face, in Warminstwr. Walking behind a chap dressed in shorts and a T shirt. Maybe that's her choice. But how is she going to integrate like that?
Mrs J is indeed culturally aligned to the UK. very much so in fact.
But here's the point.
To the racists, it won't matter. Wherever you look through history, people who have set one group up for a fall have rarely cared about the individual, only about their belonging to a group. Hence why Jews who fought for Germany in WW1 were still sent to the camps. If you were a good person, it did not matter. If you were a boon to the country, it did not matter. If you were brilliant in your field, it did not matter.
All that mattered was that you were part of a certain group.
And this is seen time and time again. The Rwandan genocide; Apartheid; racism in America's deep south.
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
If thise things are both fundamental to your political make up, you're not centrist. A centrist doesn't have political principles that cannot be altered to stand in the middle of the prevailing fashion.
I would say the fundamentals of centrism are: -Belief in the state - not the nation state specifically, but all manifestations of state power -Belief in a notion of 'modernity' and not being behind the times, but in a very malleable way. If enough people tell a centrist that moisturising with a dog turd is what all the right-thinking people are doing now, they will do it. -A strong wish to identity oneself with elite power and wealth, and the prevailing intelligentsia.
Centrism is the new woke then. Stuff you don't like.
Not at all. I think woke is a very clearly defined ideology, with critical race theory and a lot of other writing (I cannot call it academia) at its heart.
Centrism by its nature is not an ideology because it is a triangulation between the two opposing points in any political system. You can (and did) have centrist Nazis and Communists. The centrists of today have utterly different views than the centrists of 20 years ago. That's because their views were never based on conviction, they were just what was in the middle then.
There's so much b/s in that.
"Centrist" isn't someone picking both extremes and then choosing a middle position. It's about people whose views fall naturally within the centre. Whilst, I might add, many right-wing shits and left wing fools seem to race to the extremes as some form of badge of honour.
Likewise, your sentence about 'wokeism' is also rather lacking, and disagrees with much of what the anti-wokeists screech about.
I'd also argue that many of the current Reform supporters have totally different views from twenty years ago as well - especially the ones moving over from a traditional Labour position. And that's because politics moves and changes as the world changes - many Conservative Party policies of 2019 would appear anathema to the party in 1979, let alone 1945. And the same with Labour, though that tends to change at a slower rate.
Most of all: This is not a bad thing.
Your post makes no sense. 'The centre' is defined by the two polls. If it isn't, it has no meaning at all.
"'The English don't come any more...we miss their money': How Mallorca's war on British tourists backfired"
What exactly did they expect would happen?
I don't think the Mallorcans campaigning against (British) tourists are the same Mallorcans as the Mallorcans lamenting their disappearance.
It isn't a campaign against British tourists, it is a campaign against excessive drinking, and loud loutish behaviour, which just happens to be Brits on holiday.
Mallorca has decided to move more upmarket, and probably rightly so. It is a lovely island and I have enjoyed a number of holidays there myself over the years. Different resorts cater to different markets and often different nationalities. There is a definite market for cheap booze and all night partying, and while not my thing am happy that this goes on elsewhere. I understand why the local residents get tired of it.
Why do you say “myself” in the sentence “I have enjoyed a number of holidays there myself”?
Clearly you are referring to you when you say “I”, so you don’t need to say “myself”
When I hear this usage of “myself” I can only hear it in the adenoidal tones of Kier Starmer. “I myself have a number of cardigans of different colours”
It's known as the 'emphatic form' - the writer wants us to know that the fact he has been to Mallorca is the main point of the sentence. But I agree it shouldn't be overdone. Anyway, I'm off for a drink.
In the sentence "I have been there myself," the word "myself" is used as an intensive pronoun (also called an emphatic pronoun). Here's how it works:
An intensive pronoun is used to emphasize the subject of the sentence. It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence but adds focus or reinforcement.
"I have been there myself" emphasizes that you, personally, have been there.
You could also say "I myself have been there" or "I have been there"—but adding "myself" gives it a stronger personal touch.
Reflexive pronouns like "myself" are also used when the subject and object are the same: Reflexive: I hurt myself while cooking. (You did something to yourself.) Intensive: I cooked dinner myself. (You’re emphasizing that you did it, not someone else.)
At least she looked embarrassed at singing “God save the Queen”. We’ve all been there…
This reads as if people often sing the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever have. Not that I've avoided it or anything, the scenario just hasn't arisen. Is this unusual? Do PBers have a lot of singing the national anthem in their lives?
You have lived a largely “safe” life. You have had a good career and lived in a country which, bar the odd uncomfortable time has not realistically been under threat in your lifetime.
You take for granted a factor of soft nationalism that many people in most countries don’t take for granted. To a huge amount of people on the planet, whether they live in democracies or dictatorships, the state protects them. There will always be minorities who the state oppresses but your average man on the street believes that the state, their state is protecting them.
Back to the whole lack of understanding because of the privilege of living in a very free and tolerant country. You have no cultural or direct knowledge of what it’s like to lose it so the things that attach you to that state, the UK, it’s flag and anthem are disposable.
I live in a place that has largely the same protections but it also has people alive who lived under the Nazis, they lived in fear and it was physically and mentally awful. The national anthem and display of flags is very important culturally because there is a cultural memory of losing that.
So you can cock a snook at it but maybe think about the fact that seemingly minor trivial and silly things like “a song” or a “bit of cloth” represent something more - they represent a country where someone from the arse end of nowhere can move through the system and get a well paid city career that allows them a comfortable late age existence where they can freely criticise the govern,ent or future government without fear of someone knocking on the door one night.
It’s not a bad thing to have love for your country and often that’s as simple as singing a patriotic song, like pretty much every nation in the world does, often very happily. Don’t mock, it’s allowed you to exist the way you do.
If you don't have much, at least you have your country. I'm proud of being from Scotland (and the UK), but it constitutes only a small part of my self-worth because of my education, my job, my stable relationship, my experiences travelling around the world. If I didn't have those things, being Scottish would be much more important.
I think that's what explains these different attitudes to nationalism.
(I know that having children delivers a huge amount of self-worth to people too, which I think explains why people don't have them as much any more - that self-worth is now delivered by all these other experiences.)
There are very many people who are a great deal better educated, better travelled, wealthier, and with longer marriages and relationships on the clock than you, who are also a great deal more patriotic than you. Claiming that patriotism is some sort of substitute for success and happiness is patronisingly obtuse almost to the point of parody.
Done right, patriotism is simply a realisation that we are all part of a larger community. (Our family, street, neighbourhood, football club and, ultimately country).
Singing “God save the King” is a recognition of that relationship has a focal point. But it’s also a statement that there is a social contract between the governed and the governor:
May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause to sing with one heart and voice: God save the King!” is statement of his obligation to us (it’s “our” not “his” laws) and a warning that we are *choosing* to support him (“may he ever give us cause”) and that consent can be withdrawn at any time
I have never sung the national anthem because the words are ridiculous and infers that we are all subservient to the monarchy
I would not bow to any member of the royal family, but would be perfectly happy to receive a handshake
I was brought up in a family that generally were happy to sing the anthem, and at the late Queens coronation in 1953 my grandmother jumped to attention every time the anthem was played
I support the monarchy, as I do not think a republic would be any better, but subservience, no
I don't like the national anthem either.
It isn't really a national anthem, it is a monarchist anthem, and also carries theological baggage about the nature of salvation.
Archers theme ( thanks Billy Connolly) Jerusalem or Angels by Robbie Williams?
The Archers theme would make me seriously consider changing citizenship.
Nothing more reliably brings out the heavy sigh and “oh ffs” while reaching for the off button than the bloody Archers theme, given the Archers seems to be in the schedule every time I make any journey in the car.
I agree with the suggestion of I vow to thee my country as a national anthem.
The Archers theme personally makes me think of two things, one positive and negative ; sunny and civilised car journeys to the country on a sunday lumchtime, and the more stifling aspect of the rural middle-class from my years in Sussex, that I eventually needed a change from.
I like the national anthem. It's a moderately good tune and reaches a satisfying conclusion - unlike the French one that sort of mutters off at the end.
If we were swapping it I would choose Rule Britannia. It is among the most misunderstood songs in the world, because it was actually not a boasting, jingoistic song, but a subversive song - an implied protest against Britain's involvement in the Wars of the Spanish Succession. It is 'Rule the waves' not 'Rules the waves' - it's an instruction manual for remaining a happy, free and independent country using the ocean as a defensive moat. It was around this time that people like Voltaire lauded the UK for freedom of speech. I feel we need to be reminded of those things more than ever. We have very much lost control over the waves - not the waves worldwide, which we policed for a while, but the ones nominally within our borders.
It is despised by many, but that goes for every expression of joyous, confident patriotism.
'I vow to thee my country' is an opposite ethic to me. It's saying 'yes, I'll shut up and do anything you say'. There's no contract there - the Government are not expected to do anything in return for this loyalty from the governed. And the 'there's another country' bit which may or may not be an allusion to Christianity but could frankly be anything, is creepy to my ears.
"'The English don't come any more...we miss their money': How Mallorca's war on British tourists backfired"
What exactly did they expect would happen?
I don't think the Mallorcans campaigning against (British) tourists are the same Mallorcans as the Mallorcans lamenting their disappearance.
It isn't a campaign against British tourists, it is a campaign against excessive drinking, and loud loutish behaviour, which just happens to be Brits on holiday.
Mallorca has decided to move more upmarket, and probably rightly so. It is a lovely island and I have enjoyed a number of holidays there myself over the years. Different resorts cater to different markets and often different nationalities. There is a definite market for cheap booze and all night partying, and while not my thing am happy that this goes on elsewhere. I understand why the local residents get tired of it.
Why do you say “myself” in the sentence “I have enjoyed a number of holidays there myself”?
Clearly you are referring to you when you say “I”, so you don’t need to say “myself”
When I hear this usage of “myself” I can only hear it in the adenoidal tones of Kier Starmer. “I myself have a number of cardigans of different colours”
It's known as the 'emphatic form' - the writer wants us to know that the fact he has been to Mallorca is the main point of the sentence. But I agree it shouldn't be overdone. Anyway, I'm off for a drink.
In the sentence "I have been there myself," the word "myself" is used as an intensive pronoun (also called an emphatic pronoun). Here's how it works:
An intensive pronoun is used to emphasize the subject of the sentence. It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence but adds focus or reinforcement.
"I have been there myself" emphasizes that you, personally, have been there.
You could also say "I myself have been there" or "I have been there"—but adding "myself" gives it a stronger personal touch.
Reflexive pronouns like "myself" are also used when the subject and object are the same: Reflexive: I hurt myself while cooking. (You did something to yourself.) Intensive: I cooked dinner myself. (You’re emphasizing that you did it, not someone else.)
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
If thise things are both fundamental to your political make up, you're not centrist. A centrist doesn't have political principles that cannot be altered to stand in the middle of the prevailing fashion.
I would say the fundamentals of centrism are: -Belief in the state - not the nation state specifically, but all manifestations of state power -Belief in a notion of 'modernity' and not being behind the times, but in a very malleable way. If enough people tell a centrist that moisturising with a dog turd is what all the right-thinking people are doing now, they will do it. -A strong wish to identity oneself with elite power and wealth, and the prevailing intelligentsia.
Centrism is the new woke then. Stuff you don't like.
Not at all. I think woke is a very clearly defined ideology, with critical race theory and a lot of other writing (I cannot call it academia) at its heart.
Centrism by its nature is not an ideology because it is a triangulation between the two opposing points in any political system. You can (and did) have centrist Nazis and Communists. The centrists of today have utterly different views than the centrists of 20 years ago. That's because their views were never based on conviction, they were just what was in the middle then.
There's so much b/s in that.
"Centrist" isn't someone picking both extremes and then choosing a middle position. It's about people whose views fall naturally within the centre. Whilst, I might add, many right-wing shits and left wing fools seem to race to the extremes as some form of badge of honour.
Likewise, your sentence about 'wokeism' is also rather lacking, and disagrees with much of what the anti-wokeists screech about.
I'd also argue that many of the current Reform supporters have totally different views from twenty years ago as well - especially the ones moving over from a traditional Labour position. And that's because politics moves and changes as the world changes - many Conservative Party policies of 2019 would appear anathema to the party in 1979, let alone 1945. And the same with Labour, though that tends to change at a slower rate.
Most of all: This is not a bad thing.
Your post makes no sense. 'The centre' is defined by the two polls. If it isn't, it has no meaning at all.
It seems to be the one political place you go if you want to be optimistic and positive about Britain - and your own political future
That’s an incredible asset and Reform own it. All the other parties are a downbeat melange of apology, protest, whining or guilt. Reform remind me of the SNP in the noughties, but in a much wider British context
It may be the wave they surf into government. Or it may overturn them, surfboard flipping
It seems the BBC’s Chris Mason is copping a load of flak for honestly reporting what he saw rather than what centrists want to read
“Centrist” has had quite the journey. From term of abuse by very online lefties at people they consider worse than Tories, to term of abuse by very online righties at people they consider worse than communists.
It’s no more a term of abuse than ‘leftie’ or ‘rightie’, and many people apply the label to themselves.
Yes, I am quite happy being called a Centrist Dad, because I am one.
(It does depend on what is meant by centrist of course. I am dry as dust on economic matters very liberal on social issues, so it averages out overall.
If thise things are both fundamental to your political make up, you're not centrist. A centrist doesn't have political principles that cannot be altered to stand in the middle of the prevailing fashion.
I would say the fundamentals of centrism are: -Belief in the state - not the nation state specifically, but all manifestations of state power -Belief in a notion of 'modernity' and not being behind the times, but in a very malleable way. If enough people tell a centrist that moisturising with a dog turd is what all the right-thinking people are doing now, they will do it. -A strong wish to identity oneself with elite power and wealth, and the prevailing intelligentsia.
Centrism is the new woke then. Stuff you don't like.
Not at all. I think woke is a very clearly defined ideology, with critical race theory and a lot of other writing (I cannot call it academia) at its heart.
Centrism by its nature is not an ideology because it is a triangulation between the two opposing points in any political system. You can (and did) have centrist Nazis and Communists. The centrists of today have utterly different views than the centrists of 20 years ago. That's because their views were never based on conviction, they were just what was in the middle then.
There's so much b/s in that.
"Centrist" isn't someone picking both extremes and then choosing a middle position. It's about people whose views fall naturally within the centre. Whilst, I might add, many right-wing shits and left wing fools seem to race to the extremes as some form of badge of honour.
Likewise, your sentence about 'wokeism' is also rather lacking, and disagrees with much of what the anti-wokeists screech about.
I'd also argue that many of the current Reform supporters have totally different views from twenty years ago as well - especially the ones moving over from a traditional Labour position. And that's because politics moves and changes as the world changes - many Conservative Party policies of 2019 would appear anathema to the party in 1979, let alone 1945. And the same with Labour, though that tends to change at a slower rate.
Most of all: This is not a bad thing.
Your post makes no sense. 'The centre' is defined by the two polls. If it isn't, it has no meaning at all.
OT - The issue with both Johnson and Truss is that Farage would be a fool to let either enter Reform UK. I think Farage is many things but I don't think he is a fool
Comments
Except that the BBC are supposed to be impartial, and will be giving similar coverage to every party’s conference.
These days Labour is largely a familiy business.
I would though have Land of Hope and Glory as the UK anthem and Jerusalem as the English anthem with GSTK as just the royal anthem at events the King attends
Its was an 'effect on the Chancellor' comment not an 'Ellies career' comment
I would also make NI due on pensions and unearned income in a move towards integrating the two into a single tax.
Sure, there is short term pain, but a balanced budget and sound government finances is a foundation for encouraging growth and investment. Deficit spending via Trussite tax cuts or Brownite largesse is not a stimulus to growth, it is an addiction much like giving an alcoholic another bottle to stave off hangover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ7zdnZSxoQ
Personally I favour an insurance system for it like Japan
The disease is mission creep and lack of productivity in government spending. Taxes are only part of the story.
For example, central government employs 0.5m more people than in 2020. Has there been a similar increase in output? If not, why not? And could that £15bn (assuming an average of £30k per head) be better utilised reducing the deficit? And the employees add more to the economy in the private sector?
I wish
NEW THREAD
Nothing more reliably brings out the heavy sigh and “oh ffs” while reaching for the off button than the bloody Archers theme, given the Archers seems to be in the schedule every time I make any journey in the car.
I rather like Jerusalem as an English national anthem. Hard to sing though. If I start off in my normal register I can't reach low enough to get to 'green' - and I have quite a low voice.
Is 'I vow to theemy country' considered English or British? It (well it's tune, i.e. Jupiter) was on the proms last night. I rather like it.
So it's not as if we are not doing anything about it. Quite whether the cuts will enhance or damage productivity is unclear. Increasingly I am acting as a very expensive secretary!
Private sector productivity has been pretty languid in recent decades too
Those who have pushed multiculturalism have much to answer for. They might think it just means a great range of restaurants to eat in but forget it also sometimes means views that are counter to the British way of life.
I saw a woman in a full on burwua/niquab or whatever the one is where you cannot even see the face, in Warminstwr. Walking behind a chap dressed in shorts and a T shirt. Maybe that's her choice. But how is she going to integrate like that?
The Archers theme personally makes me think of two things, one positive and negative ; sunny and civilised
car journeys to the country on a sunday lumchtime, and the more stifling aspect of the rural middle-class from my years in Sussex, that I eventually needed a change from.
The Labour right wing takeover was built around authoritarian principles and routine intimidation of members that want to get on. It’s why they have ended up with such weak MPs. They won. But a side effect was turning the party’s MPs into dilettante centrists and unprincipled yes people.
“Terrorist” being devalued by applying it to our best citizens is Labour head office smearing opponents as they have learnt works within their organisation.
Honestly, I wonder how Reform would be worse?
I voted Labour because our local Tory MP was a bad lot. But I regret my choice. Not voting at all would have left a better taste. ( in retrospect )
But here's the point.
To the racists, it won't matter. Wherever you look through history, people who have set one group up for a fall have rarely cared about the individual, only about their belonging to a group. Hence why Jews who fought for Germany in WW1 were still sent to the camps. If you were a good person, it did not matter. If you were a boon to the country, it did not matter. If you were brilliant in your field, it did not matter.
All that mattered was that you were part of a certain group.
And this is seen time and time again. The Rwandan genocide; Apartheid; racism in America's deep south.
An intensive pronoun is used to emphasize the subject of the sentence. It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence but adds focus or reinforcement.
"I have been there myself" emphasizes that you, personally, have been there.
You could also say "I myself have been there" or "I have been there"—but adding "myself" gives it a stronger personal touch.
Reflexive pronouns like "myself" are also used when the subject and object are the same: Reflexive: I hurt myself while cooking. (You did something to yourself.) Intensive: I cooked dinner myself. (You’re emphasizing that you did it, not someone else.)
If we were swapping it I would choose Rule Britannia. It is among the most misunderstood songs in the world, because it was actually not a boasting, jingoistic song, but a subversive song - an implied protest against Britain's involvement in the Wars of the Spanish Succession. It is 'Rule the waves' not 'Rules the waves' - it's an instruction manual for remaining a happy, free and independent country using the ocean as a defensive moat. It was around this time that people like Voltaire lauded the UK for freedom of speech. I feel we need to be reminded of those things more than ever. We have very much lost control over the waves - not the waves worldwide, which we policed for a while, but the ones nominally within our borders.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=35IEkEwMqzg&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD
It is despised by many, but that goes for every expression of joyous, confident patriotism.
'I vow to thee my country' is an opposite ethic to me. It's saying 'yes, I'll shut up and do anything you say'. There's no contract there - the Government are not expected to do anything in return for this loyalty from the governed. And the 'there's another country' bit which may or may not be an allusion to Christianity but could frankly be anything, is creepy to my ears.